Newest and Best Tithing Discussion

[Artaxerxes]

Hence a perpetual cycle of poverty and dependency on the church. I'm talking about the poorest of the poor here btw. The no-frills family that is just scraping by. The way the church defines tithing keeps this family in a cycle of poverty.

Oh, but wait, we have a self-reliance program where they can pulled themselves up by their bootstraps... you know, that self-reliance manual that omitted the part where the Lord's way of giving was for the rich to give to the poor.

No, the way the church defines tithing does not keep families in a cycle of poverty. Have you forgotten the Lord's promise in Malachi.

There have been times in my life were finances were very tight and the money shouldn't have worked out. I literally could not afford to pay tithing mathematically and pay all of my bills. I paid anyway and it all worked out. It always has. One just has to have a little faith.

As for your charge that the church does not teach that the rich should give to the poor, you are once again just making things up.

The church teaches this all of the time.

This is where we can't seem to agree on the nuances. God blesses any sacrifice when made with pure intent. Yes, He blesses poor people when they feel they are sacrificing. The condemnation from ancient prophets is squarely attributed to church leadership for requiring an impropper tithe, especially for "salvation."

As far as the church omission, yes, the church is selective on how they talk about the rich giving to the poor in their self-reliance manual. Rob Fotheringham did an entire video on it. He mentions it after the 14:30 mark:

Rob Fotheringham has an agenda and is intellectually dishonest. Not wasting my time with his garbage.

You don't enjoy hour long videos of people reading things to you like a toddler?

[LDS Watchman]

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.

On what grounds do you claim that the apostles were re-defining the term interest from how Joseph understood it?

Hmm, let's see if we could come up with a list of reasons, as to why they would need to make an official statement on the matter?

People were unaware.
After 6+ years people still didn't understand, so clarification was needed.
or
There was a change in policy.

Had there been any new converts baptized during that time who may need to have it clarified. Is there a previous definitive statement by Joseph Smith you can point to that shows a contradiction with what the Twelve wrote?

[/color][/size][/b]And let this law or ordinance be henceforth taught to all who present themselves for admission into this church.” (HC 7:251

All this means is that the law of tithing was to be taught to investigators prior to their baptism. That's it. It's not saying that there was a change in how tithing was defined.

[Dusty Wanderer]

Sometimes you come over an an absolute idiot. I think you do it on purpose.
Church authorities use words so that people can understand. The words have meanings.... I mean... good grief, do I really need to explain this to you!

Stupid questions get stupid answers.

Huh? It's interesting that you trimmed off the previous portion of your exchange with RH where it is apparent that he didn't ask the question, you did. You asked why he thought "interest" didn't need to be re-defined. He suggested checking out the 1828 dictionary from the era because its meaning would've been clear in their vernacular.

In a previous post just a page or two back you complimented RH on his ability to admit when he was wrong. However, I've never seen you do the same since I've been here, which I admit hasn't been as long as you folks.

Sometimes I'm right there with you and then at other times -- like with this exchange -- you come across as disingenuous. And I agree with RH that it sometimes seems tactical.

[LDS Watchman]

No, the way the church defines tithing does not keep families in a cycle of poverty. Have you forgotten the Lord's promise in Malachi.

There have been times in my life were finances were very tight and the money shouldn't have worked out. I literally could not afford to pay tithing mathematically and pay all of my bills. I paid anyway and it all worked out. It always has. One just has to have a little faith.

As for your charge that the church does not teach that the rich should give to the poor, you are once again just making things up.

The church teaches this all of the time.

This is where we can't seem to agree on the nuances. God blesses any sacrifice when made with pure intent. Yes, He blesses poor people when they feel they are sacrificing. The condemnation from ancient prophets is squarely attributed to church leadership for requiring an impropper tithe, especially for "salvation."

As far as the church omission, yes, the church is selective on how they talk about the rich giving to the poor in their self-reliance manual. Rob Fotheringham did an entire video on it. He mentions it after the 14:30 mark:

Rob Fotheringham has an agenda and is intellectually dishonest. Not wasting my time with his garbage.

You don't enjoy hour long videos of people reading things to you like a toddler?

No, not really. Shocker huh?

[iWriteStuff]

It was more than fair actually. Let's look at what was said on Aug 15, 1844:
“Let every member proceed immediately to tithe himself or herself, a tenth of all their property and money… and then let them continue to pay in a tenth of their income from that time forth… And let this law or ordinance be henceforth taught to all who present themselves for admission into this church.” (HC 7:251

It was newly instituted and was to continue from that time on. It's spelled out in their own words as clear as day. It was a change in the "law or ordinance", a change in the practice of tithing that wasn't there before, but was to begin and "henceforth" be done after the new manner.

Some context:

1) This surprise policy change was just after Joseph died and Brigham discovered that all the church's money and property went to Emma. He needed a capital raise something fierce. Gee, where can we get some more money in a big hurry? Oh right, let's just update the tithing policy.
2) There was no established Presidency of the Church, no lead spokesman for God on Earth. No one person was authorized to receive revelation for the entire church (at least in the way we understand it today). Succession policy had not been established yet, or even needed. There was no prophetic revelation, no vote to add a revelation to the D&C, no grand "ah ha!" moment. Just the gaping chasm of bankruptcy opening up below them while Brigham accused Emma of all sorts of things and condemned her to hell.
3) This "policy change" (what a funny and strangely modern practice) took on a permanent form three years before they bothered to re-establish the First Presidency. And it stuck.

As they say, never let a good emergency go to waste.

It's strange to relate how important tithing gets whenever the leaders of the church nearly drive it into bankruptcy. And how many policy changes, like withholding the financial statement, occur whenever the leaders have something to gain by hiding their deeds or covering for their mistakes.

I suppose we should be happy we're not covering Joseph and Brigham's debts (yes, that happened later too) and instead have a monster rainy day fund. But that doesn't excuse the lack of transparency.

[LDS Watchman]

Sometimes you come over an an absolute idiot. I think you do it on purpose.
Church authorities use words so that people can understand. The words have meanings.... I mean... good grief, do I really need to explain this to you!

Stupid questions get stupid answers.

Huh? It's interesting that you trimmed off the previous portion of your exchange with RH where it is apparent that he didn't ask the question, you did. You asked why he thought "interest" didn't need to be re-defined. He suggested checking out the 1828 dictionary from the era because its meaning would've been clear in their vernacular.

In a previous post just a page or two back you complimented RH on his ability to admit when he was wrong. However, I've never seen you do the same since I've been here, which I admit hasn't been as long as you folks.

Sometimes I'm right there with you and then at other times -- like with this exchange -- you come across as disingenuous. And I agree with RH that it sometimes seems tactical.

Yes, you are right that RH didn't specifically ask a question. But the implied question was "How did Noah Webster define interest?" And a further implication was that if he didn't define interest as income, then the apostles were full of it.

[briznian]

I agree that it is between you and the Lord, that much we can agree on. Ask any bishop, what does "income" mean?

Everyone "knows" its between you and the Lord. Everyone also "knows" that its not.

Stop me if you've heard this before: Do you want net blessings or gross blessings?

[Reluctant Watchman]

You don't enjoy hour long videos of people reading things to you like a toddler?

I was even trying to be helpful and gave him the time stamp.

[Reluctant Watchman]

I agree that it is between you and the Lord, that much we can agree on. Ask any bishop, what does "income" mean?

Everyone "knows" its between you and the Lord. Everyone also "knows" that its not.

Stop me if you've heard this before: Do you want net blessings or gross blessings?

Gross is definitely part of this discussion, and probably what many ancient prophets thought of as to how modern church leaders err in their wickedness.

[briznian]

I agree that it is between you and the Lord, that much we can agree on. Ask any bishop, what does "income" mean?

Everyone "knows" its between you and the Lord. Everyone also "knows" that its not.

Stop me if you've heard this before: Do you want net blessings or gross blessings?

Gross is definitely part of this discussion, and probably what many ancient prophets thought of as to how modern church leaders err in their wickedness.

Yes, I hesitate to define tithing for anyone else. But after reading JST Gen 14:39 I have come to the conclusion that it's neither gross nor net.

[Artaxerxes]

It was more than fair actually. Let's look at what was said on Aug 15, 1844:
“Let every member proceed immediately to tithe himself or herself, a tenth of all their property and money… and then let them continue to pay in a tenth of their income from that time forth… And let this law or ordinance be henceforth taught to all who present themselves for admission into this church.” (HC 7:251

It was newly instituted and was to continue from that time on. It's spelled out in their own words as clear as day. It was a change in the "law or ordinance", a change in the practice of tithing that wasn't there before, but was to begin and "henceforth" be done after the new manner.

Some context:

1) This surprise policy change was just after Joseph died and Brigham discovered that all the church's money and property went to Emma. He needed a capital raise something fierce. Gee, where can we get some more money in a big hurry? Oh right, let's just update the tithing policy.
2) There was no established Presidency of the Church, no lead spokesman for God on Earth. No one person was authorized to receive revelation for the entire church (at least in the way we understand it today). Succession policy had not been established yet, or even needed. There was no prophetic revelation, no vote to add a revelation to the D&C, no grand "ah ha!" moment. Just the gaping chasm of bankruptcy opening up below them while Brigham accused Emma of all sorts of things and condemned her to hell.
3) This "policy change" (what a funny and strangely modern practice) took on a permanent form three years before they bothered to re-establish the First Presidency. And it stuck.

As they say, never let a good emergency go to waste.

It's strange to relate how important tithing gets whenever the leaders of the church nearly drive it into bankruptcy. And how many policy changes, like withholding the financial statement, occur whenever the leaders have something to gain by hiding their deeds or covering for their mistakes.

I suppose we should be happy we're not covering Joseph and Brigham's debts (yes, that happened later too) and instead have a monster rainy day fund. But that doesn't excuse the lack of transparency.

It was not a change. It was the same thing that was taught during Joseph's life about the construction of the temple.

"The Temple is to be built by tithing and consecration, and every one is at liberty to consecrate all they find in their hearts so to do; but the tythings required, is one tenth of all, any one possessed at the commencement of the building, and one tenth part of all his increase from that time till the completion of the same, whether it be money or whatever he may be blessed with."
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... ical-intro

[Reluctant Watchman]

So does a person who cannot pay rent or put food on the table have "increase"?

[iWriteStuff]

It was not a change. It was the same thing that was taught during Joseph's life about the construction of the temple.

"The Temple is to be built by tithing and consecration, and every one is at liberty to consecrate all they find in their hearts so to do; but the tythings required, is one tenth of all, any one possessed at the commencement of the building, and one tenth part of all his increase from that time till the completion of the same, whether it be money or whatever he may be blessed with."
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... ical-intro

You realize that was a very targeted practice, right? Read it again (above, emphasis added).

The scope changed when Joseph died. Then it was 10% of everything you owned as of Aug 1844 (or whenever you joined, if you're a convert), plus 10% yearly etc etc.

[Artaxerxes]

It was not a change. It was the same thing that was taught during Joseph's life about the construction of the temple.

"The Temple is to be built by tithing and consecration, and every one is at liberty to consecrate all they find in their hearts so to do; but the tythings required, is one tenth of all, any one possessed at the commencement of the building, and one tenth part of all his increase from that time till the completion of the same, whether it be money or whatever he may be blessed with."
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... ical-intro

You realize that was a very targeted practice, right? Read it again (above, emphasis added).

The scope changed when Joseph died. Then it was 10% of everything you owned as of Aug 1844 (or whenever you joined, if you're a convert), plus 10% yearly etc etc.

They designated the tithes to the temple, but the definition of what constitutes a tithe didn't change

[Oldemandalton]

Let’s examine Malachi 3 since there has been some confusion on this chapter:

Malachi 3:1
Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.

This is a prophecy of the coming of an ‘Elias’, a forerunner like John the Baptist, who would prepare for the coming of the Messiah who will visit the Temple in the last days. This ‘Elias’ is Joseph Smith. D&C 35:4

Malachi 3:2
But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap:

The Messiah will test and purify His people.

Malachi 3:3-4
And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness.

Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the LORD, as in the days of old, and as in former years.

The Messiah will test and purify the latter day Jews and priests, who will make an offering at the 3rd Temple that the Jews will rebuild. At the Temple the people brought the sacrifices to the priests who then did the actual sacrifice. Without the people bringing the animals, there was no sacrifice. It required both.

Malachi 3:5
And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith the LORD of hosts.

These sins that are listed were performed by, not just the priests, but by the people of Judah.

Malachi 3:6
For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

The sons of Jacob are the 12 tribes. The priests are only one of the tribes of Jacob. This is referring to the whole nation of Israel. Here the Lord promises to fulfil the promises to preserve His chosen people.


Malachi 3:7
Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept them. Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the LORD of hosts. But ye said, Wherein shall we return?

It is hard to count the many times Israel fell away and apostatized. Prophet after prophet urged them to repent and promised that if they did the Lord would bless them. What was the Lord accusing them of?

Malachi 3:8
Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.


In the agricultural and pastoral societies tithing was one tenth of the crops and herds. The Levite Tribe did not work and subsisted on these tithes. The tithes were offering to the Lord and then given to the Levites.

Since the tithes were not being put into the storehouses, then the Lord considered it as robbing Him because the tithes are said to be offered to Jehovah, and then He gives them to the Levites in place of an inheritance (Numbers 18:24).

Malachi 3:9-10
Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation.

Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house,

The people of Judah were leaving the storehouses empty. There was not ‘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.

Blessing are promised to the Jews if they once again brought their tithes to the Temple. See Deuteronomy 11:13-15

2 Chronicles 31:10. “And Azariah, the chief priest of the house of Zadok, answered Hezekiah and said, Since the people began to bring the offerings into the house of the Lord, we have had enough to eat, and have left plenty; for the Lord hath blessed his people; and that which is left is this great store.”

Malachi 3:11
And I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes, and he shall not destroy the fruits of your ground; neither shall your vine cast her fruit before the time in the field, saith the LORD of hosts.

The Lord promised a curse upon Israel for not giving tithes and offerings, see Haggai 1:6-11

Malachi 3:12
And all nations shall call you blessed: for ye shall be a delightsome land, saith the LORD of hosts.

In the last days the Lord will restore Israel and bless His people beyond anything in the past.

Malachi 3:13
Your words have been stout against me, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, What have we spoken so much against thee?

Murmurers will murmur, then, now, and even in the future.

Malachi 3:14
Ye have said, It is vain to serve God: and what profit is it that we have kept his ordinance, and that we have walked mournfully before the LORD of hosts?

Murmurers: “Why should we keep the commandments, like tithing? What’s in it for me?” or “I haven’t seen any blessings for paying tithing.”


Malachi 3:15
And now (and so, consequently) we call the proud (presumptuous sinners) happy; yea, they that work wickedness are set up; yea, they that tempt God are even delivered.

The critiques of the Lord see inequity when the wicked prosper and those who work evil are elevated, and they blame the Lord for permitting such things to exist. Thus, their words of criticism are “stout” against the Lord.

Malachi 3:16
Then they that feared the LORD spake often one to another: and the LORD hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the LORD, and that thought upon his name.

Those who devote themselves to the Lord and not murmur earn for themselves the privilege of having their names recorded in the Lamb’s book of life. This sacred “book of remembrance” is kept in heaven and contains the names of the faithful children of Father in Heaven, or, in other words, those who are His precious jewels. (See D&C 128:6–7; Psalm 69:28; Revelation 3:5; 21:27.) They are those who will inherit eternal life, for this book contains “the names of the sanctified, even them of the celestial world” (D&C 88:2). Those whose names are written there and who afterwards return to sinful ways will have their names blotted from the book (see Revelation 13:8; 17:8; 22:19).


Malachi 3:17
And they shall be mine, saith the LORD of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels; and I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him.


The book of life is the Lord’s book of remembrance, not unlike records that He has commanded the Saints to keep in all ages of the world. Elder McConkie explained:
“Adam kept a written account of his faithful descendants in which he recorded their faith and works, their righteousness and devotion, their revelations and visions, and their adherence to the revealed plan of salvation. To signify the importance of honoring our worthy ancestors and of hearkening to the great truths revealed to them, Adam called his record a book of remembrance. It was prepared ‘according to the pattern given by the finger of God.’ (Moses 6:4–6, 46.)

Similar records have been kept by the saints in all ages. (Mal. 3:16–17; 3 Ne. 24:15–16.) Many of our present scriptures have come down to us because they were first written by prophets who were following Adam’s pattern of keeping a book of remembrance. The Church keeps similar records today (D. & C. 85) and urges its members to keep their own personal and family books of remembrance.”

[Oldemandalton]

LOL Sad

So is socialism.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Let’s examine Malachi 3 since there has been some confusion on this chapter:

How about we start back in chapter 2... shall we?

[ransomme]

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.

On what grounds do you claim that the apostles were re-defining the term interest from how Joseph understood it?

Hmm, let's see if we could come up with a list of reasons, as to why they would need to make an official statement on the matter?

People were unaware.
After 6+ years people still didn't understand, so clarification was needed.
or
There was a change in policy.

Had there been any new converts baptized during that time who may need to have it clarified. Is there a previous definitive statement by Joseph Smith you can point to that shows a contradiction with what the Twelve wrote?

[/color][/size][/b]And let this law or ordinance be henceforth taught to all who present themselves for admission into this church.” (HC 7:251

All this means is that the law of tithing was to be taught to investigators prior to their baptism. That's it. It's not saying that there was a change in how tithing was defined.

I love how you leave out the context...

Let me help with that.

"Let every member proceed immediately to tithe himself or herself, a tenth of all their property and money…and then let them continue to pay in a tenth of their income from that time forth."

"Let every member proceed immediately to tithe himself or herself" - This is because they had a practice of a one-time tithing of surplus from time to time. D&C 119:1 "Verily, thus saith the Lord, I require all their surplus property to be put into the hands of the bishop of my church in Zion,"

"a tenth of all their property and money" - Looks like they are simply including cash with property

"and then let them continue to pay in a tenth of their income from that time forth" - Now we have a change that is to continue from then on. They have changed from "interest annually" to "income".

119:4 "And after that, those who have thus been tithed shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever, for my holy priesthood, saith the Lord."

Let's see how they could have understood "interest annually".

The 1828 Webster’s dictionary:
IN'TEREST, n. Concern; advantage; good; as private interest; public interest.
1. Influence over others.
2. Share; portion; part; participation in value. He has parted with his interest in the stocks. He has an interest in a manufactory of cotton goods.
3. Regard to private profit.
4. Premium paid for the use of money; the profit per cent derived from money lent, or property used by another person, or from debts remaining unpaid.
5. Any surplus advantage.

Hmm, we have shares (so investments); profit (Revenue - Expenses); surplus advantage (hmm surplus just like in Section 119)

How does interest mean income again? Tithing surplus/profit has strong support by the dictionary definition, and in the words used in Section 119...interesting...


BONUS: Fun fact, before section 119 the Saints used the words concentration and tithing interchangeably. They were any free-will offerings given to the Church.

[LDS Watchman]

Let’s examine Malachi 3 since there has been some confusion on this chapter:

How about we start back in chapter 2... shall we?

How about chapter 1, verse 1?

[iWriteStuff]

It was not a change. It was the same thing that was taught during Joseph's life about the construction of the temple.

"The Temple is to be built by tithing and consecration, and every one is at liberty to consecrate all they find in their hearts so to do; but the tythings required, is one tenth of all, any one possessed at the commencement of the building, and one tenth part of all his increase from that time till the completion of the same, whether it be money or whatever he may be blessed with."
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... ical-intro

You realize that was a very targeted practice, right? Read it again (above, emphasis added).

The scope changed when Joseph died. Then it was 10% of everything you owned as of Aug 1844 (or whenever you joined, if you're a convert), plus 10% yearly etc etc.

They designated the tithes to the temple, but the definition of what constitutes a tithe didn't change

Uh, no. Go back and revisit the timeline from Page 1.

Specifically, the "one tenth of ALL, and one tenth of increase" (per 1844) and not just "surplus plus interest annually" (per D&C 119, 1838).

Classic unplanned requirements change.

[ransomme]

I agree that it is between you and the Lord, that much we can agree on. Ask any bishop, what does "income" mean?

Everyone "knows" its between you and the Lord. Everyone also "knows" that its not.

Stop me if you've heard this before: Do you want net blessings or gross blessings?

Gross is definitely part of this discussion, and probably what many ancient prophets thought of as to how modern church leaders err in their wickedness.

Yes, I hesitate to define tithing for anyone else. But after reading JST Gen 14:39 I have come to the conclusion that it's neither gross nor net.

Spot on!

JST Gen 14:39 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.

[Artaxerxes]

It was not a change. It was the same thing that was taught during Joseph's life about the construction of the temple.

"The Temple is to be built by tithing and consecration, and every one is at liberty to consecrate all they find in their hearts so to do; but the tythings required, is one tenth of all, any one possessed at the commencement of the building, and one tenth part of all his increase from that time till the completion of the same, whether it be money or whatever he may be blessed with."
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... ical-intro

You realize that was a very targeted practice, right? Read it again (above, emphasis added).

The scope changed when Joseph died. Then it was 10% of everything you owned as of Aug 1844 (or whenever you joined, if you're a convert), plus 10% yearly etc etc.

They designated the tithes to the temple, but the definition of what constitutes a tithe didn't change

Uh, no. Go back and revisit the timeline from Page 1.

Specifically, the "one tenth of ALL, and one tenth of increase" (per 1844) and not just "surplus plus interest annually" (per D&C 119, 1838).

Classic unplanned requirements change.

Again, that's the same thing that was taught when Joseph was alive. That's why my quote included, "the tythings required, is one tenth of all, any one possessed at the commencement of the building."

You're welcome to say that what Joseph did was different from D&C 119. But what was taught in 1844 was no different from what was taught in 1841.

[ransomme]

Hmm interesting quote I just came across.

1899 General Conference, the Church President Lorenzo Snow:
"I pray that every man, woman and child who has means shall pay one-tenth of their income as a tithing"

He obviously uses the income definition in 1899, but what sticks out is the phrase "who has means". Obviously, he was of the opinion that the poor did not pay.

[Artaxerxes]

Hmm interesting quote I just came across.

1899 General Conference, the Church President Lorenzo Snow:
"I pray that every man, woman and child who has means shall pay one-tenth of their income as a tithing"

He obviously uses the income definition in 1899, but what sticks out is the phrase "who has means". Obviously, he was of the opinion that the poor did not pay.

Of all people on the planet, there are few that you can be more certain did not believe that.

"The poorest of the poor can pay tithing; the Lord requires it at our hands. … Everybody should pay tithing. … The law shall be observed. … And we shall pay our debts. … God bless you”
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/man ... 5?lang=eng

[ransomme]

Hmm interesting quote I just came across.

1899 General Conference, the Church President Lorenzo Snow:
"I pray that every man, woman and child who has means shall pay one-tenth of their income as a tithing"

He obviously uses the income definition in 1899, but what sticks out is the phrase "who has means". Obviously, he was of the opinion that the poor did not pay.

Of all people on the planet, there are few that you can be more certain did not believe that.

"The poorest of the poor can pay tithing; the Lord requires it at our hands. … Everybody should pay tithing. … The law shall be observed. … And we shall pay our debts. … God bless you”
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/man ... 5?lang=eng

The inconsistency is duly noted, thanks.

BTW I'll take his quote during GC as President as the authoritative one.

I do not recall are you and Atticus both of the Gross opinion?

I ask because I wonder if you take Total Compensation into account. If you are employed you get a number of benefits that have monetary values. Do you include them too? If you want to know what your Total Compensation is, I am sure that your HR dept. will have that available.