Newest and Best Tithing Discussion

[ransomme]

I’ll simply refer y’all back to Alma’s words from the Book of Mormon (Mosiah 18).

You mean the scripture that doesn't mention anything about tithing?

You realize that you are speaking of tithing as a standalone commandment. Remember that It is a part of the law of consecration. You and your pagan king buddy Artaxerxes are missing the spirit and the letter of the principle.

Tithing is also only a tenth part, if you will, of what we are aiming to concentrate to God.

A reasonable person reading section 119 would immediately understand that tithing was not based on income. First it was surplus property, and second was annual interest. These two things together both speak to gains outside of base income minus expenses at the very least.

By the standard of a reasonable person tithing itself would be understood to be based on the same principle as "magnify your calling" and the parable of the talents.

Surplus means surplus.
Interest means interest.

And on top of that we give offerings, and try to concentrate even more.

[BeNotDeceived]

... A reasonable person ...

Applying the reasonable person standard to the idea of paying on increase would likely include basing it on your change in net worth from one year to the next. That is how I pay my tithing to The Church of the March 8 Miracle, and already the Windows of Heaven have opened in the form of a purple .

[Mindfields]

To you Art, I'm assuming not, since they have some "income." What you don't realize is this keep the poor in a perpetual cycle of poverty to the church.

False. The Church encourages self-reliance, to better oneself, and rise out of poverty. BYU Pathways was designed for a cheap way for members to rise out of poverty and to increase their position and income through education. I have seen family and ward members acquire better, well paying jobs through this and other programs of the church.

What the church teaches as self-reliance also omits (in that manual I might add) is that the Lord's way of caring for the people is for the right to care for the poor.

Self-reliance philosophy: “If you give a man a fish, he will be hungry tomorrow. If you teach a man to fish, he will be richer forever.” (An old Indian proverb) This is the idea behind BYU Pathways.

The Church takes care of it's poor. I have not seen one faithful tithe payer turned away.

I have not seen one faithful tithe payer turned away.

And this is why the church fails.

[Mindfields]

They were all poor. The church was poor. They all gave willingly. None of this crap the billion $ corp is pulling today, and convincing poor around the world that they need the blessings of giving a financial offering at the temple of Baal.

So: Joseph asking poor people to sacrifice to build a temple = good. RMN asking poor people to sacrifice to build a temple = bad.

RMN isn't asking. You HAVE TO pay in order to cross the threshhold.

Joseph Smith literally said that he would guard the door to the Nauvoo Temple himself and only those who had paid their bonus would be permitted to enter.

More accurately someone said Joseph Smith said this.

[Mindfields]

I know they are satanic. I said they are.

Because BY was in cahoots w/ those who killed Joseph. Joseph wasn’t a polygamist.

Of course you don’t believe any of this and we diverge great in our opinions. We disagree. Nothing new here.

So it appears that you can't back up a single one of your charges.

Sounds about right.

I don’t have to “prove” (back up) to you what I’ve come to know for myself. You believe much of what current church leaders teach, I don’t.

What you claim you "know" for yourself directly contradicts historical fact. Joseph Smith literally taught that masonry is a corrupted form of the endowment. And yet here you claim to "know" that BY corrupted the endowment revealed by Joseph Smith by... wait for it... making it masonic.

Holy men in the scriptures covenanted to give up their own lives life (or the lives of their children) if they failed to fulfill their end of a covenant. Were these men Satanic?

Was Joseph Smith Satanic for introducing the endowment (with distinct similarities to masonry) and telling people that this was required for the highest salvation?

This is not historical fact. There is no contemporary record of Joseph Smith saying any such thing. This came from Brigham and his gang.

[Mindfields]

I don’t have to “prove” (back up) to you what I’ve come to know for myself. You believe much of what current church leaders teach, I don’t.

What you claim you "know" for yourself directly contradicts historical fact. Joseph Smith literally taught that masonry is a corrupted form of the endowment. And yet here you claim to "know" that BY corrupted the endowment revealed by Joseph Smith by... wait for it... making it masonic.

Holy men in the scriptures covenanted to give up their own lives life (or the lives of their children) if they failed to fulfill their end of a covenant. Were these men Satanic?

Was Joseph Smith Satanic for introducing the endowment (with distinct similarities to masonry) and telling people that this was required for the highest salvation?

You throw around the term “historical fact” like a play toy.

It's a known fact that the masonic elements were part of the endowment Joseph administered in the Red Brick store. It's also a well known fact that Joseph taught that masonry was a corrupted form of the endowment.

What I said about the Holy men in the scriptures is a fact to.

Might be well known but is clearly not a fact. Heber Kimball is the one that said Joseph Smith said masonry was a corrupted form of the endowment. Of course Joseph was dead and could in no way set the record straight if needed.

[LDS Watchman]

Actually, I think you better read it again. The Lord says that the WHOLE NATION is robbing him in tithes and offerings.

Actually, I think you better read it again.

I'm quite familiar with what it says. It says that the WHOLE NATION is robbing God in tithes and offerings.

so you keep quoting Malachi 3:9....but if you actually read it in context starting Malachi 2:1 you will see "O ye priests, this commandment is for you." Also if you look at Malachi 2:14 you can clearly see that the "Ye" ie you, that is used in Malachi 3:9 is still referring to the priests. I could go on but I won't. Malachi 3 isn't an island, and it has to be read with at least chapter 2 to get the full meaning and context.

I don't think you understand how the Old Testament prophets wrote. They switched back and forth to different topics and people. Usually they specifically say who they are speaking to, but not always.

In the case of Malachi, the opening words of the book say that it's the word of the Lord to Israel, not just the priests.

1 The burden of the word of the Lord to Israel by Malachi.

All of chapter 1 is directed at all of Israel.

Then in chapter 2, there are 10 verses directed specifically at the priests. Malachi tells us this by stating:

1 And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you.

Then in verse 11, we see that Malachi switches back to the entire house of Israel, addressing various the houses of Judah and Israel specifically.

11 ¶ Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the Lord which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god.

And "Ye" was used already in chapter 1, referring to all of Israel.

And in case there is any confusion, in chapter 3 when he is speaking about being robbed in tithes, he specifically says that the WHOLE NATION is robbing him.

8 ¶ Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.
9 Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation.
10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

[LDS Watchman]

A reasonable person reading section 119 would immediately understand that tithing was not based on income. First it was surplus property, and second was annual interest. These two things together both speak to gains outside of base income minus expenses at the very least.

By the standard of a reasonable person tithing itself would be understood to be based on the same principle as "magnify your calling" and the parable of the talents.

Surplus means surplus.
Interest means interest.

And on top of that we give offerings, and try to concentrate even more.

What was meant by interest was not defined in D&C 119.

In 1844, the Twelve Apostles defined it as income. And isn't the argument how Joseph Smith defined it? The Twelve were intimately acquainted with Joseph, so they obviously got that from him, the Holy Ghost, or more than likely both.

[LDS Watchman]

So: Joseph asking poor people to sacrifice to build a temple = good. RMN asking poor people to sacrifice to build a temple = bad.

RMN isn't asking. You HAVE TO pay in order to cross the threshhold.

Joseph Smith literally said that he would guard the door to the Nauvoo Temple himself and only those who had paid their bonus would be permitted to enter.

More accurately someone said Joseph Smith said this.

Same goes for all the words of Christ we have. What's your point?

[Robin Hood]

Actually, I think you better read it again.

I'm quite familiar with what it says. It says that the WHOLE NATION is robbing God in tithes and offerings.

so you keep quoting Malachi 3:9....but if you actually read it in context starting Malachi 2:1 you will see "O ye priests, this commandment is for you." Also if you look at Malachi 2:14 you can clearly see that the "Ye" ie you, that is used in Malachi 3:9 is still referring to the priests. I could go on but I won't. Malachi 3 isn't an island, and it has to be read with at least chapter 2 to get the full meaning and context.

I don't think you understand how the Old Testament prophets wrote. They switched back and forth to different topics and people. Usually they specifically say who they are speaking to, but not always.

In the case of Malachi, the opening words of the book say that it's the word of the Lord to Israel, not just the priests.

1 The burden of the word of the Lord to Israel by Malachi.

All of chapter 1 is directed at all of Israel.

Then in chapter 2, there are 10 verses directed specifically at the priests. Malachi tells us this by stating:

1 And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you.

Then in verse 11, we see that Malachi switches back to the entire house of Israel, addressing various the houses of Judah and Israel specifically.

11 ¶ Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the Lord which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god.

And "Ye" was used already in chapter 1, referring to all of Israel.

And in case there is any confusion, in chapter 3 when he is speaking about being robbed in tithes, he specifically says that the WHOLE NATION is robbing him.

8 ¶ Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.
9 Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation.
10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

The way verse 9 reads to me, it could just as easily be saying that the priests had robbed the nation as well as God.
I will investigate further.

[LDS Watchman]

What you claim you "know" for yourself directly contradicts historical fact. Joseph Smith literally taught that masonry is a corrupted form of the endowment. And yet here you claim to "know" that BY corrupted the endowment revealed by Joseph Smith by... wait for it... making it masonic.

Holy men in the scriptures covenanted to give up their own lives life (or the lives of their children) if they failed to fulfill their end of a covenant. Were these men Satanic?

Was Joseph Smith Satanic for introducing the endowment (with distinct similarities to masonry) and telling people that this was required for the highest salvation?

You throw around the term “historical fact” like a play toy.

It's a known fact that the masonic elements were part of the endowment Joseph administered in the Red Brick store. It's also a well known fact that Joseph taught that masonry was a corrupted form of the endowment.

What I said about the Holy men in the scriptures is a fact to.

Might be well known but is clearly not a fact. Heber Kimball is the one that said Joseph Smith said masonry was a corrupted form of the endowment. Of course Joseph was dead and could in no way set the record straight if needed.

Heber C. Kimball was not the only one who said this.

But he was an eye witness who had received the endowment from Joseph Smith. He wrote his fellow apostle Parley P. Pratt and told him about what he had experienced and what Joseph had taught.

Then Parley came and received the same thing. This was all before Joseph's death.

[LDS Watchman]

I'm quite familiar with what it says. It says that the WHOLE NATION is robbing God in tithes and offerings.

so you keep quoting Malachi 3:9....but if you actually read it in context starting Malachi 2:1 you will see "O ye priests, this commandment is for you." Also if you look at Malachi 2:14 you can clearly see that the "Ye" ie you, that is used in Malachi 3:9 is still referring to the priests. I could go on but I won't. Malachi 3 isn't an island, and it has to be read with at least chapter 2 to get the full meaning and context.

I don't think you understand how the Old Testament prophets wrote. They switched back and forth to different topics and people. Usually they specifically say who they are speaking to, but not always.

In the case of Malachi, the opening words of the book say that it's the word of the Lord to Israel, not just the priests.

1 The burden of the word of the Lord to Israel by Malachi.

All of chapter 1 is directed at all of Israel.

Then in chapter 2, there are 10 verses directed specifically at the priests. Malachi tells us this by stating:

1 And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you.

Then in verse 11, we see that Malachi switches back to the entire house of Israel, addressing various the houses of Judah and Israel specifically.

11 ¶ Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the Lord which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god.

And "Ye" was used already in chapter 1, referring to all of Israel.

And in case there is any confusion, in chapter 3 when he is speaking about being robbed in tithes, he specifically says that the WHOLE NATION is robbing him.

8 ¶ Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.
9 Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation.
10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

The way verse 9 reads to me, it could just as easily be saying that the priests had robbed the nation as well as God.
I will investigate further.

Please do investigate it further.

In its proper context there is zero chance that Malachi 8-10 is referring specifically to the priests and not the entire house of Israel.

[LDS Watchman]

So it appears that you can't back up a single one of your charges.

Sounds about right.

I don’t have to “prove” (back up) to you what I’ve come to know for myself. You believe much of what current church leaders teach, I don’t.

What you claim you "know" for yourself directly contradicts historical fact. Joseph Smith literally taught that masonry is a corrupted form of the endowment. And yet here you claim to "know" that BY corrupted the endowment revealed by Joseph Smith by... wait for it... making it masonic.

Holy men in the scriptures covenanted to give up their own lives life (or the lives of their children) if they failed to fulfill their end of a covenant. Were these men Satanic?

Was Joseph Smith Satanic for introducing the endowment (with distinct similarities to masonry) and telling people that this was required for the highest salvation?

This is not historical fact. There is no contemporary record of Joseph Smith saying any such thing. This came from Brigham and his gang.

Here's a contemporary record of Joseph Smith saying this:

Letter from Heber C Kimball to Parley P. Pratt

Nauvoo. June the 17 1842

Dear Brother and sister <Pratt> Sister Ollive not forgoten by me. no I remember old friends. all though I have not writen to you fore some time, it has been on the acount of much buisness. I am well my family are tolerable fare. it is a time of helth in the City of Nauvoo. the Emegration is great here. they are coming in here from most Evry State in the union this place has grone half. since I got home the Temple is geting on well. all seem to be interested in the concern. thare is a great menny Brick buildings going up this season. thare is 7 or 8 Brick yards in this place. some have burnt thier kills this season. and men stand Ready to take evry brick as soon as they are cool. Brother Joseph feels as well as I Ever see him. one reason is he has got a small company. that he feels safe in thare hads. and that is not all he can open his bosom to and feel him self safe. I wish you was here so as to feel and hear fore your self. we have recieved some pressious things through the Prophet on the preast hood that would caus your Soul to rejoice I can not give them to you on paper fore they are not to be riten. So you must come and get them fore your self.—We have organised a Lodge here. of Masons. since we obtained a charter. that was in March since that thare has near two hundred been made masons[.] Br Joseph and Sidny was the first that was Recieved in to the Lodg. all of the twelve have become members Except Orson P. he Hangs back. he will wake up soon, thare is a similarity.of preast Hood in masonry. Br Joseph ses masonary was taken from preast Hood but has become degennated. but menny things are perfect. we have a prosession on the 24 of June which is cold by Masons St Johns day in this country. I think I think it will result in good. the Lord is with us and we are prosperd concidering all things. Money is scarce but provisions plen<ty> and cheap. the saints that come from England- have all got in to buisness , and the grater part of them have got places. those that have means to by with. by Lots. those that have not go and take up lots on a disputed tract of land that lays in the limets of the city. it cost nothing.fore them.proberly they will not be troubled fore sevrel years[.] they go on to the Island. whare they get thare timber to build with and burn. this land lays on the banck of the River. and store plenty by picking up. So what more can they ask but at the same time thare is <menny that finds falt and are ready to denigh the Lord and turn traters to thare Brethren Somm have found falt becaus we had no Housses fore them to go in when they got here. Some becaus we did not make more of them and invite them Home and provide fore them[.] we would be glad if they could know we have as much as <we> can do to live our selvs we are thronged all the day Long[.] we would Esteem it a pleasure to retire from the seas and rest our warry souls fore a time but this will not do. we must fite. Dear Br I can tell you our battle will be chort. and others will have to front the battle my dear wife send much love to you and wife, you have my best wishes. you have my pains. there is much Excitement in this county on the acount of our Election. we have nominated our own of Officers. and no doubt we shall Elect them this makes the delve made and I am glad. so amen. I am as Ever
Heber C. Kimball

Mr Parly P Pratt
Manchester
or Liverpool

http://jared.pratt-family.org/letter-to ... -1842.html

[LDS Watchman]

I relate a personal story. Back in the day my wife and I had good jobs and salaries. Our combined income was equal to at least one of the brotheren's stipends (tru story). Then we moved to a new country with grand plans, Well, we hit a decent phase in our lives and humbly learned much. During that time it felt wrong to pay tithing when some months we had to borrow money to pay rent (and by borrow I mean borrow because we paid it back). Seriously I was receiving a whopping 600-700 bucks of unemployment a month with a wife and three kids. After we moved neither of us had jobs for the first year and a half. Then my wife (after being the president of a small business in the US) went to waitressing (and that's not the half of the lower lows). Anyhow, that went on for a couple of years. I stayed home with the kids (while also applying for jobs) while she would leave Monday afternoons and come back late Saturday nights. Fun times...you should try it. Anyhow, I'll say it again, paying tithes, under those circumstances, was not fulfilling, and feels wrong to this day thinking about now. But I bucked up like a good little camper and did my duty.

Truthfully I never think about it, and only just reflected on it. I didn't think about before this post at all. But since the subject came up and now I have reflected back I think I paid it because of a what-if guilt trip. I have a testimony about the Gospel of Christ, the truthfulness of the BoM, of Joseph Smith as a prophet seer, and revelator, but I never got one about tithing that is true. I think I felt, what if this time I didn't pay and this was the time I needed to in order to receive some unrealized yet hoped-for blessing. I couldn't even really afford the gas for regular attendance to the Temple (FYI right now gas here is like $9 bucks a gallon, normally $6 or so) but I had to pay tithing to keep my recommend. I really didn't do anything. No new clothes for years, maybe a couple of movies a year, no new "toys", no vacations for years (I didn't see my family for over 6 years), etc. Man, you know how often I ate french toast? Almost daily because our neighbor had a child who worked at a grocery store and they'd give us the bread that the store was throwing out, hahaha. When you get dried out bread making pan french toast helps soften it up. As does soaking it in soup or breaking it into pieces in your oatmeal. I'm sure that you'll call that bread my blessing, my mana, but let's try to be serious.

I'm not looking for pity and I am also not complaining at all. For me, it was what it was, and today is what it is. I just think that after walking in those shoes for some years I had something to share on the matter. Usually, I'll just stick to doctrine though, and understanding data, information, patterns, etc.

With all due respect, is it possible that while you were struggling financially that you paid tithing begrudgingly, and therefore missed out on at least some of the promised blessings associated with paying a full tithe?

[Robin Hood]

so you keep quoting Malachi 3:9....but if you actually read it in context starting Malachi 2:1 you will see "O ye priests, this commandment is for you." Also if you look at Malachi 2:14 you can clearly see that the "Ye" ie you, that is used in Malachi 3:9 is still referring to the priests. I could go on but I won't. Malachi 3 isn't an island, and it has to be read with at least chapter 2 to get the full meaning and context.

I don't think you understand how the Old Testament prophets wrote. They switched back and forth to different topics and people. Usually they specifically say who they are speaking to, but not always.

In the case of Malachi, the opening words of the book say that it's the word of the Lord to Israel, not just the priests.

1 The burden of the word of the Lord to Israel by Malachi.

All of chapter 1 is directed at all of Israel.

Then in chapter 2, there are 10 verses directed specifically at the priests. Malachi tells us this by stating:

1 And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you.

Then in verse 11, we see that Malachi switches back to the entire house of Israel, addressing various the houses of Judah and Israel specifically.

11 ¶ Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the Lord which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god.

And "Ye" was used already in chapter 1, referring to all of Israel.

And in case there is any confusion, in chapter 3 when he is speaking about being robbed in tithes, he specifically says that the WHOLE NATION is robbing him.

8 ¶ Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.
9 Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation.
10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

The way verse 9 reads to me, it could just as easily be saying that the priests had robbed the nation as well as God.
I will investigate further.

Please do investigate it further.

In its proper context there is zero chance that Malachi 8-10 is referring specifically to the priests and not the entire house of Israel.

Firstly, in my view you are incorrect to determine that the Lord switches from addressing the priests back to the people in general in verse 11 of chapter 2. This is apparent from the subsequent verses where he is describing priestly activities such as officiating at the altar etc. He also goes on to address Levi, which we know is the priestly class. In fact, a number of the Lord's criticisms appear to be criticising things that the priests had control over. Therefore I believe your view that he is done addressing the priests by the end if verse 10 is unsound and not borne out in the actual text.
More observations to follow.

[LDS Watchman]

I don't think you understand how the Old Testament prophets wrote. They switched back and forth to different topics and people. Usually they specifically say who they are speaking to, but not always.

In the case of Malachi, the opening words of the book say that it's the word of the Lord to Israel, not just the priests.

1 The burden of the word of the Lord to Israel by Malachi.

All of chapter 1 is directed at all of Israel.

Then in chapter 2, there are 10 verses directed specifically at the priests. Malachi tells us this by stating:

1 And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you.

Then in verse 11, we see that Malachi switches back to the entire house of Israel, addressing various the houses of Judah and Israel specifically.

11 ¶ Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the Lord which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god.

And "Ye" was used already in chapter 1, referring to all of Israel.

And in case there is any confusion, in chapter 3 when he is speaking about being robbed in tithes, he specifically says that the WHOLE NATION is robbing him.

8 ¶ Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.
9 Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation.
10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

The way verse 9 reads to me, it could just as easily be saying that the priests had robbed the nation as well as God.
I will investigate further.

Please do investigate it further.

In its proper context there is zero chance that Malachi 8-10 is referring specifically to the priests and not the entire house of Israel.

Firstly, in my view you are incorrect to determine that the Lord switches from addressing the priests back to the people in general in verse 11 of chapter 2. This is apparent from the subsequent verses where he is describing priestly activities such as officiating at the altar etc. He also goes on to address Levi, which we know is the priestly class. In fact, a number of the Lord's criticisms appear to be criticising things that the priests had control over. Therefore I believe your view that he is done addressing the priests by the end if verse 10 is unsound and not borne out in the actual text.
More observations to follow.

So only the priests were guilty of dealing treacherously with the wives of their youth? The people were all righteous and it was just those dang priests who had gone astray? The messenger of the covenant would only be sent to the priests? Elijah would only turn the hearts of the priests to their fathers?

Is that what you are suggesting?

[Robin Hood]

The way verse 9 reads to me, it could just as easily be saying that the priests had robbed the nation as well as God.
I will investigate further.

Please do investigate it further.

In its proper context there is zero chance that Malachi 8-10 is referring specifically to the priests and not the entire house of Israel.

Firstly, in my view you are incorrect to determine that the Lord switches from addressing the priests back to the people in general in verse 11 of chapter 2. This is apparent from the subsequent verses where he is describing priestly activities such as officiating at the altar etc. He also goes on to address Levi, which we know is the priestly class. In fact, a number of the Lord's criticisms appear to be criticising things that the priests had control over. Therefore I believe your view that he is done addressing the priests by the end if verse 10 is unsound and not borne out in the actual text.
More observations to follow.

So only the priests were guilty of dealing treacherously with the wives of their youth? The people were all righteous and it was just those dang priests who had gone astray? The messenger of the covenant would only be sent to the priests? Elijah would only turn the hearts of the priests to their fathers?

Is that what you are suggesting?

No, not at all. But the priests were facilitating it. They were the ones who were permitting wives to be "put away" - which, by the way, was not divorce as we would recognise it - and allowing the people to stumble through lax teaching where they, the priests, call good evil etc.
Remember, the priest were the civil as well as the religious law givers.

[LDS Watchman]

Please do investigate it further.

In its proper context there is zero chance that Malachi 8-10 is referring specifically to the priests and not the entire house of Israel.

Firstly, in my view you are incorrect to determine that the Lord switches from addressing the priests back to the people in general in verse 11 of chapter 2. This is apparent from the subsequent verses where he is describing priestly activities such as officiating at the altar etc. He also goes on to address Levi, which we know is the priestly class. In fact, a number of the Lord's criticisms appear to be criticising things that the priests had control over. Therefore I believe your view that he is done addressing the priests by the end if verse 10 is unsound and not borne out in the actual text.
More observations to follow.

So only the priests were guilty of dealing treacherously with the wives of their youth? The people were all righteous and it was just those dang priests who had gone astray? The messenger of the covenant would only be sent to the priests? Elijah would only turn the hearts of the priests to their fathers?

Is that what you are suggesting?

No, not at all. But the priests were facilitating it. They were the ones who were permitting wives to be "put away" - which, by the way, was not divorce as we would recognise it - and allowing the people to stumble through lax teaching where they, the priests, call good evil etc.

So then you acknowledge that the priests are not the only ones being referred to in the Book of Malachi, post Malachi 2:1-10.

So why insist that only the priests were robbing God in tithes?

[Robin Hood]

Firstly, in my view you are incorrect to determine that the Lord switches from addressing the priests back to the people in general in verse 11 of chapter 2. This is apparent from the subsequent verses where he is describing priestly activities such as officiating at the altar etc. He also goes on to address Levi, which we know is the priestly class. In fact, a number of the Lord's criticisms appear to be criticising things that the priests had control over. Therefore I believe your view that he is done addressing the priests by the end if verse 10 is unsound and not borne out in the actual text.
More observations to follow.

So only the priests were guilty of dealing treacherously with the wives of their youth? The people were all righteous and it was just those dang priests who had gone astray? The messenger of the covenant would only be sent to the priests? Elijah would only turn the hearts of the priests to their fathers?

Is that what you are suggesting?

No, not at all. But the priests were facilitating it. They were the ones who were permitting wives to be "put away" - which, by the way, was not divorce as we would recognise it - and allowing the people to stumble through lax teaching where they, the priests, call good evil etc.

So then you acknowledge that the priests are not the only ones being referred to in the Book of Malachi, post Malachi 2:1-10.

So why insist that only the priests were robbing God in tithes?

No, I acknowledge nothing of the sort. I thought I had made that clear. He is clearly still addressing the priests and their activities.

My thoughts on Malachi 3:9 have changed to a certain extent thanks to this exchange. I believe the Lord is reprimanding both priests and the people.
The priests, because they were misusing the tithes and not bringing them into the storehouse for the benefit of the nation, but using them to enrich themselves and justifying themselves in robbing God. And the people who had cottoned onto to what was going on and started to withhold their tithes for that reason.
Very similar situation as in the LDS church today.

[Reluctant Watchman]

But the priests were facilitating it. They were the ones who were permitting wives to be "put away" - which, by the way, was not divorce as we would recognise it - and allowing the people to stumble through lax teaching where they, the priests, call good evil etc.
Remember, the priest were the civil as well as the religious law givers.

Sounds very similar to LDS culture. It is common knowledge that most members look to church leaders for the majority of their gospel interpretation. The Q15 even say that our revelation cannot contradict their revelation. The people are lead astray through human idolatry.

[LDS Watchman]

My thoughts on Malachi 3:9 have changed to a certain extent thanks to this exchange. I believe the Lord is reprimanding both priests and the people.

I appreciate that you are wiling to admit that your views have changed somewhat.

I agree that Malachi 3 was directed at both the priests and the people. Hence the Lord saying the whole nation was robbing him.

[Reluctant Watchman]

I feel these verses do include the priests and the people, but where I diverge is the insistence that "all", particularly the poor, are under this condemnation. When we look to other scriptures, like Mosiah 18, we get an additional witness of how the storehouse is to be used.

[Artaxerxes]

I feel these verses do include the priests and the people, but where I diverge is the insistence that "all", particularly the poor, are under this condemnation. When we look to other scriptures, like Mosiah 18, we get an additional witness of how the storehouse is to be used.

Where those who have little still have to give?

[LDS Watchman]

I feel these verses do include the priests and the people, but where I diverge is the insistence that "all", particularly the poor, are under this condemnation. When we look to other scriptures, like Mosiah 18, we get an additional witness of how the storehouse is to be used.

D&C 119 specifically states that tithing is for:

2 For the building of mine house, and for the laying of the foundation of Zion and for the priesthood, and for the debts of the Presidency of my Church.

Joseph Smith also repeatedly said that the temple was to be built by the tithing of the people.

If you want to try and draw a parallel between Malachi 3 and Mosiah 18, then it would appear that the parallel is in regards to fast offerings and not tithing.

Malachi 3 specifically mentions that the people were robbing God in tithes and OFFERINGS.

People who have nothing don't pay anything towards caring for the poor and instead receive help from the funds those who are more fortunate have provided.

This is precisely how fast offering funds are administered in the church.

[ransomme]

A reasonable person reading section 119 would immediately understand that tithing was not based on income. First it was surplus property, and second was annual interest. These two things together both speak to gains outside of base income minus expenses at the very least.

By the standard of a reasonable person tithing itself would be understood to be based on the same principle as "magnify your calling" and the parable of the talents.

Surplus means surplus.
Interest means interest.

And on top of that we give offerings, and try to concentrate even more.

What was meant by interest was not defined in D&C 119.

In 1844, the Twelve Apostles defined it as income. And isn't the argument how Joseph Smith defined it? The Twelve were intimately acquainted with Joseph, so they obviously got that from him, the Holy Ghost, or more than likely both.

Correct they had to define it, rather they had to re-define it after Joseph's death, not because people didn't understand, but because they were making a policy change.

And yes, Apostles like Page and Hyde.