Tithe the Poor

[Serragon]

I am of the opinion that we should side with scripture and the word of the Lord in this matter.

But I find it difficult to engage in debates on this topic because it's a conflict of interest (no pun intended) for all involved. How can one be sure that people aren't railing on the current tithing practices because they want to help their bottom line? They can go on and on about "the poor children" like a politician until they are blue in the face, but at the end of the day nobody can know what the true motivations are. This is true for any topic, but even more so for this one.

My advice is to anyone is to follow the Lord and the Spirit, but make sure your motivations are pure. If you were hit by a bus tomorrow, how would you stand before your maker? (rhetorical)

This is why I try and talk about offerings at the same time. Tithing is essentially a small tax put on those that have in increase that year. This tax is to provide for the operations of the church and priesthood. Offerings are our voluntary donations to help the poor and needy. What we give and how much it hurts is up to us.

[Subcomandante]

Tithing is a pretty simple procedure.

It is 10 percent of your income.

You run a business, earn 1 million dollars of revenue off of a cost of goods sold of 700 thousand dollars. You pay let's say 25 percent of taxes between state and federal and local. Subtract any wages you pay any employees you have there. From there you tithe 10 percent.

You work for a business, earning 4,000 dollars a month after taxes. You tithe 400 dollars a month.

It's not that "simple". It's also a corrupt doctrine taught within the church. Read the essay, you'll see where I'm coming from. I outlined a similar example to what you did. Requiring this for a person living below the poverty level keeps them in a perpetual cycle of reliance upon the church, government, or debt.

Let's look at the examples that you gave in your essay and compare them to mine.

Business: Revenue 1M - COGS 700k = 300k EBIT. IT = 25%, Wages x 3 (50,000 each) ==> 75,000 left over, from which you tithe 7,500.

Salaryman: Wages: 40k after taxes, tithe 4k.

I will admit, with the businessman I am introducing the idea of INTEREST and taxes. So let's say for the example of the salaryman, he owns a 150k house and a 25k car and he is making payments on both. Assuming about a 5 percent mortgage rate plus other house-related costs like taxes and insurance he's probably paying about 14,400 for that house in a year. And let's also add another 4,600 for the car for a nice round figure of 19,000.

Not to mention other kinds of insurance, so let's put down another 6,000 for insurance and health-related expenses (I understand health care is about 15pct of the average American salary anyway). That leaves 15k left over, from which he should tithe 1,500, not 4,000 like in the previous example.

This is a principle that should be simple but is misunderstood. I would divide debts into necessary debts like the payment of a house or a car, and unnecessary debts like a video game console or a 60 inch television. The idea of paying tithing before paying rent is ridiculous in itself, though it has been taught by the leaders. But tithing DEFINITELY should be considered before it is splurged on a luxury item.

In Mexico we understand this principle pretty well. Yes, tithing should be a priority to pay. But it should not mean being evicted from your property or being foreclosed on, or your car repo'd because you decided to pay off of gross earnings instead of net earnings. But if it means that you'll miss out on a 60 inch TV or a 25 inch computer monitor, then tithing should be paid long before that.

[Serragon]

Tithing is a pretty simple procedure.

It is 10 percent of your income.

You run a business, earn 1 million dollars of revenue off of a cost of goods sold of 700 thousand dollars. You pay let's say 25 percent of taxes between state and federal and local. Subtract any wages you pay any employees you have there. From there you tithe 10 percent.

You work for a business, earning 4,000 dollars a month after taxes. You tithe 400 dollars a month.

It's not that "simple". It's also a corrupt doctrine taught within the church. Read the essay, you'll see where I'm coming from. I outlined a similar example to what you did. Requiring this for a person living below the poverty level keeps them in a perpetual cycle of reliance upon the church, government, or debt.

Let's look at the examples that you gave in your essay and compare them to mine.

Business: Revenue 1M - COGS 700k = 300k EBIT. IT = 25%, Wages x 3 (50,000 each) ==> 75,000 left over, from which you tithe 7,500.

Salaryman: Wages: 40k after taxes, tithe 4k.

I will admit, with the businessman I am introducing the idea of INTEREST and taxes. So let's say for the example of the salaryman, he owns a 150k house and a 25k car and he is making payments on both. Assuming about a 5 percent mortgage rate plus other house-related costs like taxes and insurance he's probably paying about 14,400 for that house in a year. And let's also add another 4,600 for the car for a nice round figure of 19,000.

Not to mention other kinds of insurance, so let's put down another 6,000 for insurance and health-related expenses (I understand health care is about 15pct of the average American salary anyway). That leaves 15k left over, from which he should tithe 1,500, not 4,000 like in the previous example.

This is a principle that should be simple but is misunderstood. I would divide debts into necessary debts like the payment of a house or a car, and unnecessary debts like a video game console or a 60 inch television. The idea of paying tithing before paying rent is ridiculous in itself, though it has been taught by the leaders. But tithing DEFINITELY should be considered before it is splurged on a luxury item.

In Mexico we understand this principle pretty well. Yes, tithing should be a priority to pay. But it should not mean being evicted from your property or being foreclosed on, or your car repo'd because you decided to pay off of gross earnings instead of net earnings. But if it means that you'll miss out on a 60 inch TV or a 25 inch computer monitor, then tithing should be paid long before that.

But this is different than what you originally posted. You said it was 10 percent of INCOME. What you are identify here is 10 percent of SURPLUS or INTEREST.

And this latter version, though it may be understood well by the saints in Mexico, is not what is taught by church leaders.

[Reluctant Watchman]

I am of the opinion that we should side with scripture and the word of the Lord in this matter.

But I find it difficult to engage in debates on this topic because it's a conflict of interest (no pun intended) for all involved. How can one be sure that people aren't railing on the current tithing practices because they want to help their bottom line? They can go on and on about "the poor children" like a politician until they are blue in the face, but at the end of the day nobody can know what the true motivations are. This is true for any topic, but even more so for this one.

My advice is to anyone is to follow the Lord and the Spirit, but make sure your motivations are pure. If you were hit by a bus tomorrow, how would you stand before your maker? (rhetorical)

Nephi and Moroni railed on the corrupt doctrines of the church. I like both of them. The Lord seemed to like them as well.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Tithing is a pretty simple procedure.

It is 10 percent of your income.

You run a business, earn 1 million dollars of revenue off of a cost of goods sold of 700 thousand dollars. You pay let's say 25 percent of taxes between state and federal and local. Subtract any wages you pay any employees you have there. From there you tithe 10 percent.

You work for a business, earning 4,000 dollars a month after taxes. You tithe 400 dollars a month.

It's not that "simple". It's also a corrupt doctrine taught within the church. Read the essay, you'll see where I'm coming from. I outlined a similar example to what you did. Requiring this for a person living below the poverty level keeps them in a perpetual cycle of reliance upon the church, government, or debt.

Let's look at the examples that you gave in your essay and compare them to mine.

Business: Revenue 1M - COGS 700k = 300k EBIT. IT = 25%, Wages x 3 (50,000 each) ==> 75,000 left over, from which you tithe 7,500.

Salaryman: Wages: 40k after taxes, tithe 4k.

I will admit, with the businessman I am introducing the idea of INTEREST and taxes. So let's say for the example of the salaryman, he owns a 150k house and a 25k car and he is making payments on both. Assuming about a 5 percent mortgage rate plus other house-related costs like taxes and insurance he's probably paying about 14,400 for that house in a year. And let's also add another 4,600 for the car for a nice round figure of 19,000.

Not to mention other kinds of insurance, so let's put down another 6,000 for insurance and health-related expenses (I understand health care is about 15pct of the average American salary anyway). That leaves 15k left over, from which he should tithe 1,500, not 4,000 like in the previous example.

This is a principle that should be simple but is misunderstood. I would divide debts into necessary debts like the payment of a house or a car, and unnecessary debts like a video game console or a 60 inch television. The idea of paying tithing before paying rent is ridiculous in itself, though it has been taught by the leaders. But tithing DEFINITELY should be considered before it is splurged on a luxury item.

In Mexico we understand this principle pretty well. Yes, tithing should be a priority to pay. But it should not mean being evicted from your property or being foreclosed on, or your car repo'd because you decided to pay off of gross earnings instead of net earnings. But if it means that you'll miss out on a 60 inch TV or a 25 inch computer monitor, then tithing should be paid long before that.

I'm not talking business revenue. Use the basic poor person's income, just like the church teaches. My example in the essay of $32k keeps a poor person in poverty, and dependent upon others. It is a horrific law by the church, especially when you require it for salvation and you build extravagant temples, both of which were condemned by Nephi and Moroni.

[John Tavner]

It's really easy to think when you understand the professions of most people were farmers in the old days. Imagine you're a farmer or rancher. You have 200 cattle, you sell 150 cattle for 60k. you now only have 50 cattle. It costs you 20k to purchase all the feed and more cattle and another 10k for food for you and another 10k for taxes - all so you can rinse, wash and repeat for the next year What is your income? 10 k. 10 percent of that is 1k. Waht happens if you ahve a bad year. You lose a lot of cattle through drought or wild animals and sell what you ahve for 30k, but you are in debt now and have no income even though you sold them for 30k.

[Subcomandante]

Tithing is a pretty simple procedure.

It is 10 percent of your income.

You run a business, earn 1 million dollars of revenue off of a cost of goods sold of 700 thousand dollars. You pay let's say 25 percent of taxes between state and federal and local. Subtract any wages you pay any employees you have there. From there you tithe 10 percent.

You work for a business, earning 4,000 dollars a month after taxes. You tithe 400 dollars a month.

It's not that "simple". It's also a corrupt doctrine taught within the church. Read the essay, you'll see where I'm coming from. I outlined a similar example to what you did. Requiring this for a person living below the poverty level keeps them in a perpetual cycle of reliance upon the church, government, or debt.

Let's look at the examples that you gave in your essay and compare them to mine.

Business: Revenue 1M - COGS 700k = 300k EBIT. IT = 25%, Wages x 3 (50,000 each) ==> 75,000 left over, from which you tithe 7,500.

Salaryman: Wages: 40k after taxes, tithe 4k.

I will admit, with the businessman I am introducing the idea of INTEREST and taxes. So let's say for the example of the salaryman, he owns a 150k house and a 25k car and he is making payments on both. Assuming about a 5 percent mortgage rate plus other house-related costs like taxes and insurance he's probably paying about 14,400 for that house in a year. And let's also add another 4,600 for the car for a nice round figure of 19,000.

Not to mention other kinds of insurance, so let's put down another 6,000 for insurance and health-related expenses (I understand health care is about 15pct of the average American salary anyway). That leaves 15k left over, from which he should tithe 1,500, not 4,000 like in the previous example.

This is a principle that should be simple but is misunderstood. I would divide debts into necessary debts like the payment of a house or a car, and unnecessary debts like a video game console or a 60 inch television. The idea of paying tithing before paying rent is ridiculous in itself, though it has been taught by the leaders. But tithing DEFINITELY should be considered before it is splurged on a luxury item.

In Mexico we understand this principle pretty well. Yes, tithing should be a priority to pay. But it should not mean being evicted from your property or being foreclosed on, or your car repo'd because you decided to pay off of gross earnings instead of net earnings. But if it means that you'll miss out on a 60 inch TV or a 25 inch computer monitor, then tithing should be paid long before that.

I'm not talking business revenue. Use the basic poor person's income, just like the church teaches. My example in the essay of $32k keeps a poor person in poverty, and dependent upon others. It is a horrific law by the church, especially when you require it for salvation and you build extravagant temples, both of which were condemned by Nephi and Moroni.

I agree. There should also be common sense in this.

Like: How much of that 30,000 consists of necessary debts? Stuff like rent payments or a mortgage? Insurance? Taxes paid? An auto payment or public transportation costs? That's why I was very careful in itemizing those things.

The correct answer is clearly not 3200 dollars, leaving this family indebted by 1,200 dollars on a yearly basis, 100 dollars per month, 5 dollars per working day.

But I doubt it is 80 dollars either.

I think the Lord understands each of us differently. What I would call a bad interpretation of the tithing law when the Scriptures make it clear what tithing is.

Interestingly, in the Islamic religion, they have a similar system to tithing called Zakat. And a similar system to offerings called Sadaka (same root as Zakat), though considered not obligatory. Their idea of Zakat is similar to the law of the tithe, with the exception that it is 2.5 percent of your earnings, and poor people and indebted people are exempted from the payment of Zakat.

I used to be VERY unflexible as to what tithing is, but as I took my business courses, I understood better the concepts between revenue and income, and between "necessary" debts or needs and "unnecessary" debts or wants.

So until we find out where the 30,000 dollars is going out of the 32,000 dollars, it's going to be a tough call exactly how much tithing would need to be paid. I do agree with you that 3,200 dollars would be an incorrect amount for tithing and this will put the man in question in debt for a long time. I'm not sure though that the final amount would be 200 dollars (out of the 2000 left) or less.

[Reluctant Watchman]

It's not that "simple". It's also a corrupt doctrine taught within the church. Read the essay, you'll see where I'm coming from. I outlined a similar example to what you did. Requiring this for a person living below the poverty level keeps them in a perpetual cycle of reliance upon the church, government, or debt.

Let's look at the examples that you gave in your essay and compare them to mine.

Business: Revenue 1M - COGS 700k = 300k EBIT. IT = 25%, Wages x 3 (50,000 each) ==> 75,000 left over, from which you tithe 7,500.

Salaryman: Wages: 40k after taxes, tithe 4k.

I will admit, with the businessman I am introducing the idea of INTEREST and taxes. So let's say for the example of the salaryman, he owns a 150k house and a 25k car and he is making payments on both. Assuming about a 5 percent mortgage rate plus other house-related costs like taxes and insurance he's probably paying about 14,400 for that house in a year. And let's also add another 4,600 for the car for a nice round figure of 19,000.

Not to mention other kinds of insurance, so let's put down another 6,000 for insurance and health-related expenses (I understand health care is about 15pct of the average American salary anyway). That leaves 15k left over, from which he should tithe 1,500, not 4,000 like in the previous example.

This is a principle that should be simple but is misunderstood. I would divide debts into necessary debts like the payment of a house or a car, and unnecessary debts like a video game console or a 60 inch television. The idea of paying tithing before paying rent is ridiculous in itself, though it has been taught by the leaders. But tithing DEFINITELY should be considered before it is splurged on a luxury item.

In Mexico we understand this principle pretty well. Yes, tithing should be a priority to pay. But it should not mean being evicted from your property or being foreclosed on, or your car repo'd because you decided to pay off of gross earnings instead of net earnings. But if it means that you'll miss out on a 60 inch TV or a 25 inch computer monitor, then tithing should be paid long before that.

I'm not talking business revenue. Use the basic poor person's income, just like the church teaches. My example in the essay of $32k keeps a poor person in poverty, and dependent upon others. It is a horrific law by the church, especially when you require it for salvation and you build extravagant temples, both of which were condemned by Nephi and Moroni.

I agree. There should also be common sense in this.

Like: How much of that 30,000 consists of necessary debts? Stuff like rent payments or a mortgage? Insurance? Taxes paid? An auto payment or public transportation costs? That's why I was very careful in itemizing those things.

The correct answer is clearly not 3200 dollars, leaving this family indebted by 1,200 dollars on a yearly basis, 100 dollars per month, 5 dollars per working day.

But I doubt it is 80 dollars either.

I think the Lord understands each of us differently. What I would call a bad interpretation of the tithing law when the Scriptures make it clear what tithing is.

Interestingly, in the Islamic religion, they have a similar system to tithing called Zakat. And a similar system to offerings called Sadaka (same root as Zakat), though considered not obligatory. Their idea of Zakat is similar to the law of the tithe, with the exception that it is 2.5 percent of your earnings, and poor people and indebted people are exempted from the payment of Zakat.

I used to be VERY unflexible as to what tithing is, but as I took my business courses, I understood better the concepts between revenue and income, and between "necessary" debts or needs and "unnecessary" debts or wants.

So until we find out where the 30,000 dollars is going out of the 32,000 dollars, it's going to be a tough call exactly how much tithing would need to be paid. I do agree with you that 3,200 dollars would be an incorrect amount for tithing and this will put the man in question in debt for a long time. I'm not sure though that the final amount would be 200 dollars (out of the 2000 left) or less.

Tithing is a stepping stone truth. We need to be willing to live a consecrated. We need to be willing to give our all to the Lord, and to care for the poor. A church that amasses $100B is not caring for the poor, I don't care how anyone slices that pie (I'm not implying that you said that either).

[XEmilyX]

Does anyone know this blogger? This article is good so far reading it.
http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2012/ ... thing.html

[mahalanobis]

A church that amasses $100B is not caring for the poor, I don't care how anyone slices that pie

I'm not thrilled about unscriptural implementations of tithing. But these are 2 separate issues.

[Reluctant Watchman]

A church that amasses $100B is not caring for the poor, I don't care how anyone slices that pie

I'm not thrilled about unscriptural implementations of tithing. But these are 2 separate issues.

How are they separate? Do you think the Lord can't build Zion any other way? Zion, the pure in heart, is not wealth. The Lord couldn't care less how much money the church has. In fact, the pride cycle follows perfects with the accumulation of wealth.

[MikeMaillet]

Does anyone know this blogger? This article is good so far reading it.
http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2012/ ... thing.html

I used to follow this blog on a regular basis until the blogger became political. The piece on tithing is very good.

Mike Maillet
Ingleside, Ontario

[MikeMaillet]

Our currency is bogus money created out of nothing by luciferians and this is what we offer to the Creator of the universe as an "honest tithe"?

Let's go shopping!

Mike Maillet
Ingleside, Ontario

[mahalanobis]

A church that amasses $100B is not caring for the poor, I don't care how anyone slices that pie

I'm not thrilled about unscriptural implementations of tithing. But these are 2 separate issues.

How are they separate? Do you think the Lord can't build Zion any other way? Zion, the pure in heart, is not wealth. The Lord couldn't care less how much money the church has. In fact, the pride cycle follows perfects with the accumulation of wealth.

How so?
The market value of your assets isn't a reflection of how much you've helped or hurt the poor. Similar to: The amount of power God has to protect his children from abuse is not a reflection of how much he loves (or doesn't love) them.

Do I think the Lord can't build Zion without money?:
He doesn't need money.

Zion the pure in heart:
Agreed.

The lord couldn't care less how much money the church has:
Agreed

[Reluctant Watchman]

How so?
The market value of your assets isn't a reflection of how much you've helped or hurt the poor. Similar to: The amount of power God has to protect his children from abuse is not a reflection of how much he loves (or doesn't love) them.

How? I refer back to Mosiah 18.

“And again Alma commanded that the people of the church should impart of their substance, every one according to that which he had; if he have more abundantly he should impart more abundantly; and of him that had but little, but little should be required; and to him that had not should be given. And thus they should impart of their substance of their own free will and good desires towards God, and to those priests that stood in need, yea, and to every needy, naked soul.”

If you have much, give much. Since the church humanitarian arm has been operating (30+ years), they have donated nearly $2.3B in aid. In comparison to the wealth the church has amassed today, that is only one-half of one percent of church funds. Yet they still convince the members in the poorest of nations that paying money will give them wealth and protect their countries. It is not a payment of tithes that does this, it is turning their hearts to God, even a broken heart and contrite spirit.

Even early church leaders are quoted stating that when the church becomes wealthy enough they will no longer require a tithe of the saints. And here we are, one of the wealthiest churches on earth, and we still beat the drum of tithing to those who live in poverty.

[Reluctant Watchman]

I'm curious, what do people think of the church requiring payment of tithes to enter the temple in order to receive "saving" ordinances?

[Reluctant Watchman]

I had an interesting experience going back/forth with a lady on Facebook. We were discussing how the church spares no expense on temples and requires the most destitute to pay tithing for salvation. I used examples from the Book of Mormon to back up those claims. Simply by quoting scripture I was accused of... wait for it... "priestcraft." That's right, priestcraft. For trying to manipulate the words of the Q15. I'm a little beside myself as to how such an accusation can be made when quoting the BoM.

[Redpilled Mormon]

I'm curious, what do people think of the church requiring payment of tithes to enter the temple in order to receive "saving" ordinances?

I hadn't really considered it in that light before, but yeah that smacks of Catholicism and the 'indulgences' practice (I think that was the name).

[Reluctant Watchman]

I'm curious, what do people think of the church requiring payment of tithes to enter the temple in order to receive "saving" ordinances?

I hadn't really considered it in that light before, but yeah that smacks of Catholicism and the 'indulgences' practice (I think that was the name).

Makes you wonder who Moroni was speaking to here in Mormon 8:

32 Yea, it shall come in a day when there shall be churches built up that shall say: Come unto me, and for your money you shall be forgiven of your sins.

Indulgences had been done away with for a very long time before the restoration. Most of what Moroni is speaking to is after Joseph.

[Iceberg]

Everyone is making good points...lots of things to think about. I have never regretted paying tithing but have regretted needing to catch up on it. For me there are very obvious blessings of it. I am bothered by some stuff going on mammon-wise but as of right now we pay the church...if/when we feel called in another direction (I love some of the stories on here of people’s alternative charitable givings) we’ll reevaluate.

So no judgment here for those that do or don’t. Some things are personal and everyone is at a different part in the learning process and just trying to do their best.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Yesterday I visited with a friend while ice fishing. We talked about a lot of things, but tithing came up and he was in agreement that requiring money to enter the temple was wrong. He also shared his own personal experience of paying tithing when they were just starting out in marriage and how difficult it was.

It has been fascinating to see that many people cannot divorce the idea of the law of sacrificing for others (poor doing all they can to help others, even though they have little to nothing), and the unrighteous dominion of church leaders requiring the payment of money for salvation. The condemnation from both Nephi and Moroni is directed specifically to those in church leadership. And I feel that also applies to anyone who feels that it is ok to request money from the poor for salvation when the church leaders are spending extravagantly on buildings and edifices.

[ransomme]

What the church is doing has little to no relationship to the parable of the talents.

How about the widow's mite? The state of the Jewish Church was in a degree of apostasy and yet the people's donations were still weighed.

[BuriedTartaria]

The Book of Mormon condemns the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and their practice of tithing. They literally are a priestcraft and church built up to get gain. They abuse and hold hostage the truth of the Book of Mormon and use it as a trophy to "prove" they are "the only true and living church". The difficulties of the reality of the world and the reality of Babylon's actions and the fight between good and evil are pulling that corporation apart.


I need to start paying tithing again so I will only be mildly lying on my temple recommend interview (I live the law of chastity, I don't believe in the authority claims of the church) because we have a temple opening up near us and my dad is going to want to go with me. I feel sick about paying tithing again but I suspect this final three year recommend will be the last interview I will have to do. I think I can come clean about my current views on Mormonism during these next three years. We'll see if that Christ-like love for the sinner who walks away from the Mormon church is given to the devout believer of the Book of Mormon who follows the law of chastity and word of wisdom but is walking away from the church as well.

I'm going to break my dad's heart some day but it is what it is. False traditions being exposed and walked away from are a running theme in scripture. It disappoints me that I will be viewed as anti-mormon when my belief in the Book of Mormon is part of what has made me realize I don't find truth or the hand of God in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and it's time to look elsewhere.

[Reluctant Watchman]

What the church is doing has little to no relationship to the parable of the talents.

How about the widow's mite? The state of the Jewish Church was in a degree of apostasy and yet the people's donations were still weighed.

The widow's might was about her intention to give, which aligns with the Law of Sacrifice. Both Nephi and Moroni condemn the LDS church for making it a requirement instead of a free offering, in addition to the poor expenditure of assets by creating fine sanctuaries.

[ransomme]

What the church is doing has little to no relationship to the parable of the talents.

How about the widow's mite? The state of the Jewish Church was in a degree of apostasy and yet the people's donations were still weighed.

The widow's might was about her intention to give, which aligns with the Law of Sacrifice. Both Nephi and Moroni condemn the LDS church for making it a requirement instead of a free offering, in addition to the poor expenditure of assets by creating fine sanctuaries.

why narrow your view so much? What you are saying does not exclude what I was saying.

1) that the church was taking payment even from the poor
2) that the Lord still accepted the widow's offering and weighed it as greater, despite the state of the church.