MAJOR MAJOR CHANGES COMING IN THE CHURCH !

[diligently seeking]

Along with what Stev is saying, the Lord fulfilled the law of witnesses in scripture where polygamy is concerned. We have Jacob 2-3, there is also King Noah and his priests in Mosiah 11, and of course Riplakish in Ether. With all due respect, I find Stev's scriptural explanation of his viewpoint sound, unemotional, and supported by the word of God.

It makes much more clear sense through the implementing of the problem that is plural marriage etc why as a church / people we cling to traditions of man zealously vs the true message of what comes through the book of mormon through faith in Jesus Christ...

D&C 93

Verily, thus saith the Lord: It shall come to pass that every soul who forsaketh his sins and cometh unto me, and calleth on my name, and obeyeth my voice, and keepeth my commandments, shall see my face and know that I am...
...31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.
32 And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation...
...39 And that wicked one cometh and taketh away light and truth, through disobedience, from the children of men, and because of the tradition of their fathers

[Col. Flagg]

I find it quite ironic that polygamy is the only subject in the church and in the scriptures where contradictory and conflicting information about it exists. But if we are to hold the B of M as the most correct book on earth, then polygamy is an abomination.

And you'd also pay a tithe on all you had
That funny "most correct book" argument works well when we want it to.

Nowhere in the B of M are we commanded to pay 10% of our gross worth or income to the church.
3 Nephi and Alma reference tithing but the terms increase, income and interest all meant 'surplus advantage' in the 1800's.

[JohnnyL]

I find it quite ironic that polygamy is the only subject in the church and in the scriptures where contradictory and conflicting information about it exists. But if we are to hold the B of M as the most correct book on earth, then polygamy is an abomination.

Nope. If I felt free to select and twist scriptures and ignore the prophets and apostles, any subject could be that way.

[shadow]

I find it quite ironic that polygamy is the only subject in the church and in the scriptures where contradictory and conflicting information about it exists. But if we are to hold the B of M as the most correct book on earth, then polygamy is an abomination.

And you'd also pay a tithe on all you had
That funny "most correct book" argument works well when we want it to.

Nowhere in the B of M are we commanded to pay 10% of our gross worth or income to the church.
3 Nephi and Alma reference tithing but the terms increase, income and interest all meant 'surplus advantage' in the 1800's.

It's plain as day in the BoM-
15 And it was this same Melchizedek to whom Abraham paid tithes; yea, even our father Abraham paid tithes of one-tenth part of all he possessed. That's the whole verse in the BoM, the most correct book as you stated earlier. All means everything. It doesn't mean excess or surplus.

The JST difference simply states that Abraham had more than he needed but it never says nor even implies that he only paid tithing on his excess. The Bible says to tithe on the firstfruits, which clearly means gross. It's the first fruit, not the leftover after your needs.

35 And to bring the firstfruits of our ground, and the firstfruits of all fruit of all trees, year by year, unto the house of the Lord:

36 Also the firstborn of our sons, and of our cattle, as it is written in the law, and the firstlings of our herds and of our flocks, to bring to the house of our God, unto the priests that minister in the house of our God:

37 And that we should bring the firstfruits of our dough, and our offerings, and the fruit of all manner of trees, of wine and of oil, unto the priests, to the chambers of the house of our God

[Col. Flagg]

I find it quite ironic that polygamy is the only subject in the church and in the scriptures where contradictory and conflicting information about it exists. But if we are to hold the B of M as the most correct book on earth, then polygamy is an abomination.

And you'd also pay a tithe on all you had
That funny "most correct book" argument works well when we want it to.

Nowhere in the B of M are we commanded to pay 10% of our gross worth or income to the church.
3 Nephi and Alma reference tithing but the terms increase, income and interest all meant 'surplus advantage' in the 1800's.

It's plain as day in the BoM-
15 And it was this same Melchizedek to whom Abraham paid tithes; yea, even our father Abraham paid tithes of one-tenth part of all he possessed. That's the whole verse in the BoM, the most correct book as you stated earlier. All means everything. It doesn't mean excess or surplus.

The JST difference simply states that Abraham had more than he needed but it never says nor even implies that he only paid tithing on his excess. The Bible says to tithe on the firstfruits, which clearly means gross. It's the first fruit, not the leftover after your needs.

35 And to bring the firstfruits of our ground, and the firstfruits of all fruit of all trees, year by year, unto the house of the Lord:

36 Also the firstborn of our sons, and of our cattle, as it is written in the law, and the firstlings of oupokygamy and of our flocks, to bring to the house of our God, unto the priests that minister in the house of our God:

37 And that we should bring the firstfruits of our dough, and our offerings, and the fruit of all manner of trees, of wine and of oil, unto the priests, to the chambers of the house of our God

Shadow, Shadow... where did your mother and I go wrong? The law of sacrifice ended with Christ's crucifixion. 'More than that which he had need' is referring to what Abram paid his tithes and offerings on! Arrgghh!!! And D&C 119 clearly states tithing is based on one's surplus... good grief, the word is mentioned 3 times in 7 short verses, but somehow that means 10% of all we earn??? *head banging against wall*

[Col. Flagg]

Speaking of consistency, where do we find a single case in scripture where God actually commands men to take more than one wife? Many like to rest "only if God commands" argument which is taken from a bad reading of Jacob 2:30. If it is such a useful thing to have many wives for the sake of population growth then why do we not see a single example of it ever? Not even in the restoration, that polygamy was an Abrahamic test so it doesn't count.

Um....God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law..Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it.

Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob [/b]did none other things than that which they were commanded[/b].

Abraham received all things, whatsoever he received, by revelation and commandment, by my word, saith the Lord

I find D&C 132 problematic and contradictory to the Book of Mormon and the Bible. We will likely disagree here but we are free to disagree.

Oh, so you don't want to be shown one single case that shows plural marriage being commanded, you only want what YOU consider scripture and disregard anything else that doesn't align with your view. Got it

That's more the pro-polygamy crowd.

[shadow]

And you'd also pay a tithe on all you had
That funny "most correct book" argument works well when we want it to.

Nowhere in the B of M are we commanded to pay 10% of our gross worth or income to the church.
3 Nephi and Alma reference tithing but the terms increase, income and interest all meant 'surplus advantage' in the 1800's.

It's plain as day in the BoM-
15 And it was this same Melchizedek to whom Abraham paid tithes; yea, even our father Abraham paid tithes of one-tenth part of all he possessed. That's the whole verse in the BoM, the most correct book as you stated earlier. All means everything. It doesn't mean excess or surplus.

The JST difference simply states that Abraham had more than he needed but it never says nor even implies that he only paid tithing on his excess. The Bible says to tithe on the firstfruits, which clearly means gross. It's the first fruit, not the leftover after your needs.

35 And to bring the firstfruits of our ground, and the firstfruits of all fruit of all trees, year by year, unto the house of the Lord:

36 Also the firstborn of our sons, and of our cattle, as it is written in the law, and the firstlings of oupokygamy and of our flocks, to bring to the house of our God, unto the priests that minister in the house of our God:

37 And that we should bring the firstfruits of our dough, and our offerings, and the fruit of all manner of trees, of wine and of oil, unto the priests, to the chambers of the house of our God

Shadow, Shadow... where did your mother and I go wrong? The law of sacrifice ended with Christ's crucifixion. 'More than that which he had need' is referring to what Abram paid his tithes and offerings on! Arrgghh!!! And D&C 119 clearly states tithing is based on one's surplus... good grief, the word is mentioned 3 times in 7 short verses, but somehow that means 10% of all we earn??? *head banging against wall*

What does the D&C require we pay before the surplus thingy??

[JohnnyL]

If auxiliaries alternated, more women and men could attend classes instead of being "out of touch" with RS/Priesthood quorum.

[Col. Flagg]

Nowhere in the B of M are we commanded to pay 10% of our gross worth or income to the church.
3 Nephi and Alma reference tithing but the terms increase, income and interest all meant 'surplus advantage' in the 1800's.

It's plain as day in the BoM-
15 And it was this same Melchizedek to whom Abraham paid tithes; yea, even our father Abraham paid tithes of one-tenth part of all he possessed. That's the whole verse in the BoM, the most correct book as you stated earlier. All means everything. It doesn't mean excess or surplus.

The JST difference simply states that Abraham had more than he needed but it never says nor even implies that he only paid tithing on his excess. The Bible says to tithe on the firstfruits, which clearly means gross. It's the first fruit, not the leftover after your needs.

35 And to bring the firstfruits of our ground, and the firstfruits of all fruit of all trees, year by year, unto the house of the Lord:

36 Also the firstborn of our sons, and of our cattle, as it is written in the law, and the firstlings of oupokygamy and of our flocks, to bring to the house of our God, unto the priests that minister in the house of our God:

37 And that we should bring the firstfruits of our dough, and our offerings, and the fruit of all manner of trees, of wine and of oil, unto the priests, to the chambers of the house of our God

Shadow, Shadow... where did your mother and I go wrong? The law of sacrifice ended with Christ's crucifixion. 'More than that which he had need' is referring to what Abram paid his tithes and offerings on! Arrgghh!!! And D&C 119 clearly states tithing is based on one's surplus... good grief, the word is mentioned 3 times in 7 short verses, but somehow that means 10% of all we earn??? *head banging against wall*

What does the D&C require we pay before the surplus thingy??

All of one's surplus. Now read verse 5... better yet, post it. Also... the term 'interest' = 'surplus'. Look it up.

[ajax]

This is a pharisaical conversation. Here is the heart of the matter:

2 Corinthians 9

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.

[shadow]

It's plain as day in the BoM-
15 And it was this same Melchizedek to whom Abraham paid tithes; yea, even our father Abraham paid tithes of one-tenth part of all he possessed. That's the whole verse in the BoM, the most correct book as you stated earlier. All means everything. It doesn't mean excess or surplus.

The JST difference simply states that Abraham had more than he needed but it never says nor even implies that he only paid tithing on his excess. The Bible says to tithe on the firstfruits, which clearly means gross. It's the first fruit, not the leftover after your needs.

35 And to bring the firstfruits of our ground, and the firstfruits of all fruit of all trees, year by year, unto the house of the Lord:

36 Also the firstborn of our sons, and of our cattle, as it is written in the law, and the firstlings of oupokygamy and of our flocks, to bring to the house of our God, unto the priests that minister in the house of our God:

37 And that we should bring the firstfruits of our dough, and our offerings, and the fruit of all manner of trees, of wine and of oil, unto the priests, to the chambers of the house of our God

Shadow, Shadow... where did your mother and I go wrong? The law of sacrifice ended with Christ's crucifixion. 'More than that which he had need' is referring to what Abram paid his tithes and offerings on! Arrgghh!!! And D&C 119 clearly states tithing is based on one's surplus... good grief, the word is mentioned 3 times in 7 short verses, but somehow that means 10% of all we earn??? *head banging against wall*

What does the D&C require we pay before the surplus thingy??

All of one's surplus. Now read verse 5... better yet, post it. Also... the term 'interest' = 'surplus'. Look it up.

When did you pay ALL your surplus to the church? Oh, that's right, never. Me neither. So we don't really live that law.

And now back to your favorite verse-

"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 which he had need."

Riddle me this- and Robin Hood can even reluctantly help you.


What did God give Abraham more than which he had need? (Cue in the Jeopardy theme)

Got it yet??



But what about tithing you ask? Well, it just so happens that verse 39 mentions how Abraham calculated tithing. It says, and I quote "Abram paid unto him tithes of ALL that he had, of ALL the riches which he possessed" .

So much can be learned by breaking down a sentence.

[Robin Hood]

Shadow, Shadow... where did your mother and I go wrong? The law of sacrifice ended with Christ's crucifixion. 'More than that which he had need' is referring to what Abram paid his tithes and offerings on! Arrgghh!!! And D&C 119 clearly states tithing is based on one's surplus... good grief, the word is mentioned 3 times in 7 short verses, but somehow that means 10% of all we earn??? *head banging against wall*

What does the D&C require we pay before the surplus thingy??

All of one's surplus. Now read verse 5... better yet, post it. Also... the term 'interest' = 'surplus'. Look it up.

When did you pay ALL your surplus to the church? Oh, that's right, never. Me neither. So we don't really live that law.

And now back to your favorite verse-

"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 which he had need."

Riddle me this- and Robin Hood can even reluctantly help you.


What did God give Abraham more than which he had need? (Cue in the Jeopardy theme)

Got it yet??



But what about tithing you ask? Well, it just so happens that verse 39 mentions how Abraham calculated tithing. It says, and I quote "Abram paid unto him tithes of ALL that he had, of ALL the riches which he possessed" .

So much can be learned by breaking down a sentence.

Shadow, I'm really surprised at you wresting the scriptures as you have just done.
JST Genesis 14:39 has no full stop (I think you call it a period) after "possessed". It is only a comma, but then goes on to say "which God had given him more than that which he had need."

The meaning of this verse is absolutely unmistakable and I think you know it. It is perfectly clear and unambiguous. Joseph Smith added the words I just quoted in order to clarify the meaning of the verse. Clearly, that was unnecessary if your interpretation is correct.

Let's just read the verse again, noting the commas and the absence of full stops. There can only be one meaning and it is very, very clear.

"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."

This is just a matter of understanding English really. If there was no comma after "possessed" I concede that your interpretation could be valid, but it's presence completely undermines your argument.

The truth is, Abraham paid a tenth of the surplus he possessed, and this verse clearly settles the argument.

[Col. Flagg]

Shadow, Shadow... where did your mother and I go wrong? The law of sacrifice ended with Christ's crucifixion. 'More than that which he had need' is referring to what Abram paid his tithes and offerings on! Arrgghh!!! And D&C 119 clearly states tithing is based on one's surplus... good grief, the word is mentioned 3 times in 7 short verses, but somehow that means 10% of all we earn??? *head banging against wall*

What does the D&C require we pay before the surplus thingy??

All of one's surplus. Now read verse 5... better yet, post it. Also... the term 'interest' = 'surplus'. Look it up.

When did you pay ALL your surplus to the church? Oh, that's right, never. Me neither. So we don't really live that law.

We're not debating this aspect of the section. I don't know anyone who has given the church 100% of their surplus upon becoming a member. So it would seem we are not obeying the law of tithing at all.

And now back to your favorite verse-

"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 which he had need."

Riddle me this- and Robin Hood can even reluctantly help you.


What did God give Abraham more than which he had need? (Cue in the Jeopardy theme)

Got it yet??

Yes, God blessed Abram (Abraham) with temporal wealth, but he DID NOT require 10% of all of it as a tithe.



But what about tithing you ask? Well, it just so happens that verse 39 mentions how Abraham calculated tithing. It says, and I quote "Abram paid unto him tithes of ALL that he had, of ALL the riches which he possessed" .

So much can be learned by breaking down a sentence.

OK, let me see if I can re-phrase the verse (JST) for you since you're clearly misinterpreting it... 'Abram paid unto him tithes of more than that which he had need of all the riches God had given him which he possessed'.

That help?

[shadow]

What does the D&C require we pay before the surplus thingy??

All of one's surplus. Now read verse 5... better yet, post it. Also... the term 'interest' = 'surplus'. Look it up.

When did you pay ALL your surplus to the church? Oh, that's right, never. Me neither. So we don't really live that law.

And now back to your favorite verse-

"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 which he had need."

Riddle me this- and Robin Hood can even reluctantly help you.


What did God give Abraham more than which he had need? (Cue in the Jeopardy theme)

Got it yet??



But what about tithing you ask? Well, it just so happens that verse 39 mentions how Abraham calculated tithing. It says, and I quote "Abram paid unto him tithes of ALL that he had, of ALL the riches which he possessed" .

So much can be learned by breaking down a sentence.

Shadow, I'm really surprised at you wresting the scriptures as you have just done.
JST Genesis 14:39 has no full stop (I think you call it a period) after "possessed". It is only a comma, but then goes on to say "which God had given him more than that which he had need."

The meaning of this verse is absolutely unmistakable and I think you know it. It is perfectly clear and unambiguous. Joseph Smith added the words I just quoted in order to clarify the meaning of the verse. Clearly, that was unnecessary if your interpretation is correct.

Let's just read the verse again, noting the commas and the absence of full stops. There can only be one meaning and it is very, very clear.

"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."

This is just a matter of understanding English really. If there was no comma after "possessed" I concede that your interpretation could be valid, but it's presence completely undermines your argument.

The truth is, Abraham paid a tenth of the surplus he possessed, and this verse clearly settles the argument.

You're the one who doesn't understand English and you're really either in denial or actually believe that you've succeeded in wresting the scriptures.


So what did God give him more than which he had need?

[Thinker]

Why does scripture always state tithing in terms of increase, not income?
It’s a similar reason why a business owner with employees to pay and other expenses does not count all of his income as all HIS income. He only counts the increase after he pays the bills/paychecks.

An example:
2 men earn the exact same income.
1st man is the sole provider of a family of 7 so after paying (bills) for his family to be housed, clothed and fed - there is no increase left.
2nd man lives with his parents who pay all of the bills - so all of his income is increase.
For a church to charge both men the same amount of money for tithing is actually against the law of tithing because it creates poverty, and tithing is intended to help those in need - not hurt them. (Deut. 14:28-29). Tithing is based on increase, not income.

[shadow]

Why does scripture always state tithing in terms of increase, not income?
It’s a similar reason why a business owner with employees to pay and other expenses does not count all of his increase as HIS income.

For example:
2 men earn the exact same income.
1st man is the sole provider of a family of 7 so after paying (bills) for his kids to be housed, clothed and fed - there is no increase left.
2nd man lives with his parents who pay all of the bills - so all of his income is increase.
For a church to charge both men the same amount of money for tithing is actually against the law of tithing because it creates poverty, and tithing is intended to help those in need - not hurt them. (Deut. 14:28-29)

The Old Testament refers to paying tithing on the first fruits, not the leftovers or the surplus. I'm sure you're keenly aware of this.

I could care less how people pay tithing but there are plenty of scriptures that point to a tithe being a tenth of all, not the leftovers. When it's taught as a matter of fact that it's supposed to be on the residue or leftovers, then I'll pipe up and show otherwise. I'll also point out that, for the
restoration, The Lord revealed to Joseph how tithing fund are to be used, which is found in the D&C. It's different than OT times where the Priests took home 1/3 of the tithes. What was Joseph to do- tell the Lord He's wrong?? Nope. You take The Lord at His word.

[Robin Hood]

All of one's surplus. Now read verse 5... better yet, post it. Also... the term 'interest' = 'surplus'. Look it up.

When did you pay ALL your surplus to the church? Oh, that's right, never. Me neither. So we don't really live that law.

And now back to your favorite verse-

"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 which he had need."

Riddle me this- and Robin Hood can even reluctantly help you.


What did God give Abraham more than which he had need? (Cue in the Jeopardy theme)

Got it yet??



But what about tithing you ask? Well, it just so happens that verse 39 mentions how Abraham calculated tithing. It says, and I quote "Abram paid unto him tithes of ALL that he had, of ALL the riches which he possessed" .

So much can be learned by breaking down a sentence.

Shadow, I'm really surprised at you wresting the scriptures as you have just done.
JST Genesis 14:39 has no full stop (I think you call it a period) after "possessed". It is only a comma, but then goes on to say "which God had given him more than that which he had need."

The meaning of this verse is absolutely unmistakable and I think you know it. It is perfectly clear and unambiguous. Joseph Smith added the words I just quoted in order to clarify the meaning of the verse. Clearly, that was unnecessary if your interpretation is correct.

Let's just read the verse again, noting the commas and the absence of full stops. There can only be one meaning and it is very, very clear.

"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."

This is just a matter of understanding English really. If there was no comma after "possessed" I concede that your interpretation could be valid, but it's presence completely undermines your argument.

The truth is, Abraham paid a tenth of the surplus he possessed, and this verse clearly settles the argument.

You're the one who doesn't understand English and you're really either in denial or actually believe that you've succeeded in wresting the scriptures.


So what did God give him more than which he had need?

I'm sorry Shadow, but this is getting increasingly bizarre.
The meaning of this verse is clear, uncontroversial, and as plain as the nose on my face.
According to my view, Joseph Smith added the phrase at the end to clarify the principle, whereas you clearly believe his intervention served to muddy the waters.

Your line of thinking is, I believe, a clear case of trying to make the scripture fit your preconception rather than reading it at face value and accepting the truth.

But hey, if you're determined to believe that way, be my guest. Perhaps you have a similar mindset to Gilbert O'Sullivan when he wrote, "This feeling inside me could never deny me the right to be wrong if I choose."

[Robin Hood]

I could care less.....

There you go with your English language problem again. If you "could care less" it means you do care to some degree; because you could care less about it.
The actual saying is "I couldn't care less".

All is becomming clear.

[shadow]

I could care less.....

There you go with your English language problem again. If you "could care less" it means you do care to some degree; because you could care less about it.
The actual saying is "I couldn't care less".

All is becomming clear.

Spell check got the best of me. But I guess it's true, I could care less. I could also care more, but I don't. I'm pretty (meaning fairly, or quite) temperate.

[Thinker]

Why does scripture always state tithing in terms of increase, not income?
It’s a similar reason why a business owner with employees to pay and other expenses does not count all of his increase as HIS income.

For example:
2 men earn the exact same income.
1st man is the sole provider of a family of 7 so after paying (bills) for his kids to be housed, clothed and fed - there is no increase left.
2nd man lives with his parents who pay all of the bills - so all of his income is increase.
For a church to charge both men the same amount of money for tithing is actually against the law of tithing because it creates poverty, and tithing is intended to help those in need - not hurt them. (Deut. 14:28-29)

The Old Testament refers to paying tithing on the first fruits, not the leftovers or the surplus. I'm sure you're keenly aware of this.

I could care less how people pay tithing but there are plenty of scriptures that point to a tithe being a tenth of all, not the leftovers. When it's taught as a matter of fact that it's supposed to be on the residue or leftovers, then I'll pipe up and show otherwise. I'll also point out that, for the
restoration, The Lord revealed to Joseph how tithing fund are to be used, which is found in the D&C. It's different than OT times where the Priests took home 1/3 of the tithes. What was Joseph to do- tell the Lord He's wrong?? Nope. You take The Lord at His word.

The first fruits offering was a free will offering, separate from and in addition to tithe. Tithe was 10% of increase if there was any. First fruits was not a given amount but left up to the discretion of the giver. And remember - back in OT times - there was no separation between religion and government. So, all costs of governing the land were paid by religious donations. Now, we have a government that taxes us, AND a church that charges us for temple worthiness.

And as the scripture Ajax pointed out - all giving should not be demanded or manipulated into giving and if they don’t they are punished. That is the adversary’s way. We ought to give from our hearts - because we study, think and feel it is right. And of all times to be a wise steward in finances - we ought to know exactly for what our sacred tithes are being spent.

[Robin Hood]

Why does scripture always state tithing in terms of increase, not income?
It’s a similar reason why a business owner with employees to pay and other expenses does not count all of his increase as HIS income.

For example:
2 men earn the exact same income.
1st man is the sole provider of a family of 7 so after paying (bills) for his kids to be housed, clothed and fed - there is no increase left.
2nd man lives with his parents who pay all of the bills - so all of his income is increase.
For a church to charge both men the same amount of money for tithing is actually against the law of tithing because it creates poverty, and tithing is intended to help those in need - not hurt them. (Deut. 14:28-29)

The Old Testament refers to paying tithing on the first fruits, not the leftovers or the surplus. I'm sure you're keenly aware of this.

I could care less how people pay tithing but there are plenty of scriptures that point to a tithe being a tenth of all, not the leftovers. When it's taught as a matter of fact that it's supposed to be on the residue or leftovers, then I'll pipe up and show otherwise. I'll also point out that, for the
restoration, The Lord revealed to Joseph how tithing fund are to be used, which is found in the D&C. It's different than OT times where the Priests took home 1/3 of the tithes. What was Joseph to do- tell the Lord He's wrong?? Nope. You take The Lord at His word.

The first fruits offering was a free will offering, separate from and in addition to tithe. Tithe was 10% of increase if there was any. First fruits was not a given amount but left up to the discretion of the giver. And remember - back in OT times - there was no separation between religion and government. So, all costs of governing the land were paid by religious donations. Now, we have a government that taxes us, AND a church that charges us for temple worthiness.

And as the scripture Ajax pointed out - all giving should not be demanded or manipulated into giving and if they don’t they are punished. That is the adversary’s way. We ought to give from our hearts - because we study, think and feel it is right. And of all times to be a wise steward in finances - we ought to know exactly for what our sacred tithes are being spent.

You are correct Thinker.
Shadow has fallen into the trap of conflating two entirely seperate principles.
First fruits giving and tithing were mutually exclusive.
The modern equivalent would be "tithes and offerings".

[shadow]

Tithe was 10% of increase if there was any. First fruits was not a given amount but left up to the discretion of the giver.

First fruits was a way to calculate tithing and it was the first fruits, that's not up to discretion. Tithing was also calculated as a tenth of whatever went under the rod, which is the same as first fruits.

[Robin Hood]

Tithe was 10% of increase if there was any. First fruits was not a given amount but left up to the discretion of the giver.

First fruits was a way to calculate tithing and it was the first fruits, that's not up to discretion. Tithing was also calculated as a tenth of whatever went under the rod, which is the same as first fruits.

Shadow, you are mistaken.
However, in truth, the only law of tithing which applies to us today is found in D&C 119. And that is clearly referring to surplus. Just look up the meaning of the word interest, or even increase, in a Websters dictionary from that time.
Case closed.

[Primary Outcast]

I have it on good authority from one of the ushers (I won't name them for obvious reasons), and I pinkie promised to never ever tell, but I just can't wait 6 more days, and I'll probably face a disciplinary council for leaking this, but here it is...

The call out. Yup. to inner earth. buckle up. We are flying there on the backs of giant eagles LOTR style. it'll be epic!

[EmmaLee]

I have it on good authority from one of the ushers (I won't name them for obvious reasons), and I pinkie promised to never ever tell, but I just can't wait 6 more days, and I'll probably face a disciplinary council for leaking this, but here it is...

The call out. Yup. to inner earth. buckle up. We are flying there on the backs of giant eagles LOTR style. it'll be epic!

YAY (especially the eagle part)!! Finally... ^^