Newest and Best Tithing Discussion

[John Tavner]

Old Briggy: September 9, 1851 – Brigham Young announces a policy stating that excommunication is an acceptable punishment for those who are not full tithe payers or those who do not comply to the word of wisdom. This measure was voted on at a special Conference in Salt Lake City. (Hosea Stout’s diary, September 9, 1851, “On the Mormon Frontier: The Diary of Hosea Stout, 1844-1861” p.403)

Super reasonable Christ-like attitude IMO.

Maybe he should have just struck them dead like Jesus did to Ananias and Sapphira, when they tried to withhold their tithing and lied about it?

Chapter 4 Begins the story: 4: 32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

36 Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”), 37 sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.

TL;DR - The Believers were all one heart and mind, those who had decided to sell their property and give all the money to the apostles for others. It was voluntary. No one was compelled.

Now for Annanias. Here are those verses: 5 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2 With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.

3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”
They weren't struck dead for witholding tithing, they were struck dead for lying about consecrating all they had, whether for glory of men or for praise from the Apostles. They came forth not just about not giving it all, but making hte appearance if they had. If thye had only laid it before them and said this is half, they wouldn't ahve been struck dead. They had a choice. They chose to withhold and lie about it in order to get gain (not just physical) before the Apostles and among men, all the while, lying to God. They were trying to appear more spiritual than they were. Also to be VERY CLEAR - THey weren't giving tithing, they were claiming to give ALL their proceeds from the sale, while secretly keeping some for themselves - they even conspired for it. I would add that if I remember correctly, these believers were endowed with incredible gifts at the beginning, I suspect that they were also attempting to deceive God in order to obtain these spiritual gifts and again obtain the glory of men, much like the wizard fellow who tried to bribe one of the apostles.

[ransomme]

"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

Is money not property, too? (hint: yes is is) But since you are apparently confused about this, you can understand why the 12 felt the need to clarify this.

"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."

How do you know they changed what God intended and what Joseph understood? Unless you have a statement by Joseph Smith defining interest as anything besides income, you really don't have an argument.

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.

This is irrelevant as we're discussing tithing post the revelation in section 119.

A fun fact it's not meant to be anything other than for fun. Your attack on that may show that you might be have a disagreeable nature.

Also slow your roll. You were the one who didn't understand the difference between deficit and debt and its effects on avioliitto to pay. Now yes money is property, which is why it may be telling that they choose to redundantly emphasize it separately. Perhaps because they were changing the nature of tithing to income rather than surplus/interest/profit as defined by the contemporary dictionary at the time.

You also don't have statements by Joseph. It was probably clear to him since he apparently didn't feel the need to elaborate. Also others understood well enough too otherwise they would have drilled him for clarification.

[Artaxerxes]

Next level question for Att and Art:

Did Brigham pay tithes or consecrate all his possessions to the Lord while serving as President of the Church?

oh, oh, I know.... ahhh, they won't answer anyway...

January 29, 1845– The Quorum of the Twelve voted to exempt themselves from the obligation of paying tithing, along with the general bishops (then Newel K. Whitney and George Miller) and the Nauvoo Temple Committee. (Heber C. Kimball diary, January 29, 1845; “Nauvoo Trustee-in-Trust Tithing and Donation Record”, p.220-222 (29 Jan. 1845), LDS archives)

Well that sure seems like more anti lies. Although it's poorly spelled, it seems like twelve had their tithing recorded, not exempted.

Screenshot_20220412-171759.png (63.64 KiB) Viewed 228 times

[Reluctant Watchman]

Old Briggy: September 9, 1851 – Brigham Young announces a policy stating that excommunication is an acceptable punishment for those who are not full tithe payers or those who do not comply to the word of wisdom. This measure was voted on at a special Conference in Salt Lake City. (Hosea Stout’s diary, September 9, 1851, “On the Mormon Frontier: The Diary of Hosea Stout, 1844-1861” p.403)

Super reasonable Christ-like attitude IMO.

Maybe he should have just struck them dead like Jesus did to Ananias and Sapphira, when they tried to withhold their tithing and lied about it?

Yes, I just ignore everything. Don't mind me.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Seriously? The guy rails against the church night and day and accuses BY of hijacking the church and the modern leaders of teaching falsehoods. But then turns around and dismisses all statements by Joseph Smith that are problematic for his desired narrative. It's super annoying.

One statement from Joseph, which I feel may have been solely based upon local circumstances. I also believe most of what he says, just not your interpretation of a lot of things.

[LDS Watchman]

When a statement by Joseph Smith goes against what he's claiming he just waves it away by saying that he doesn't put Joseph Smith on a pedestal. Either that or he just ignores it.

Why do you care?

Seriously? The guy rails against the church night and day and accuses BY of hijacking the church and the modern leaders of teaching falsehoods. But then turns around and dismisses all statements by Joseph Smith that are problematic for his desired narrative. It's super annoying.

You've lost me... why do you care again?

Why do you care why I care?

[LDS Watchman]

Seriously? The guy rails against the church night and day and accuses BY of hijacking the church and the modern leaders of teaching falsehoods. But then turns around and dismisses all statements by Joseph Smith that are problematic for his desired narrative. It's super annoying.

One statement from Joseph, which I feel may have been solely based upon local circumstances. I also believe most of what he says, just not your interpretation of a lot of things.

It's way more than one statement and you know it. You do this all the time.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Seriously? The guy rails against the church night and day and accuses BY of hijacking the church and the modern leaders of teaching falsehoods. But then turns around and dismisses all statements by Joseph Smith that are problematic for his desired narrative. It's super annoying.

One statement from Joseph, which I feel may have been solely based upon local circumstances. I also believe most of what he says, just not your interpretation of a lot of things.

It's way more than one statement and you know it. You do this all the time.

No, I just disagree with your assessments.

[LDS Watchman]

Seriously? The guy rails against the church night and day and accuses BY of hijacking the church and the modern leaders of teaching falsehoods. But then turns around and dismisses all statements by Joseph Smith that are problematic for his desired narrative. It's super annoying.

One statement from Joseph, which I feel may have been solely based upon local circumstances. I also believe most of what he says, just not your interpretation of a lot of things.

It's way more than one statement and you know it. You do this all the time.

No, I just disagree with your assessments.

No, that's not it. If it was, you would provide an alternate explanation for what he said instead of just ignoring or rejectinh what Joseph Smith said.

[Reluctant Watchman]

One statement from Joseph, which I feel may have been solely based upon local circumstances. I also believe most of what he says, just not your interpretation of a lot of things.

It's way more than one statement and you know it. You do this all the time.

No, I just disagree with your assessments.

No, that's not it. If it was, you would provide an alternate explanation for what he said instead of just ignoring or rejectinh what Joseph Smith said.

You think Joseph was a polygamist, why would I believe your assessments of what Joseph taught?

[LDS Watchman]

It's way more than one statement and you know it. You do this all the time.

No, I just disagree with your assessments.

No, that's not it. If it was, you would provide an alternate explanation for what he said instead of just ignoring or rejectinh what Joseph Smith said.

You think Joseph was a polygamist, why would I believe your assessments of what Joseph taught?

So basically you just ignore or reject all statements by Joseph Smith you don't like the same way you ignore or reject all evidence that he was a polygamist.

Yeah, that's a great way to both determine truth and to convince others that you've got it.

[LDS Watchman]

"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

Is money not property, too? (hint: yes is is) But since you are apparently confused about this, you can understand why the 12 felt the need to clarify this.

"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."

How do you know they changed what God intended and what Joseph understood? Unless you have a statement by Joseph Smith defining interest as anything besides income, you really don't have an argument.

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.

This is irrelevant as we're discussing tithing post the revelation in section 119.

A fun fact it's not meant to be anything other than for fun. Your attack on that may show that you might be have a disagreeable nature.

Also slow your roll. You were the one who didn't understand the difference between deficit and debt and its effects on avioliitto to pay. Now yes money is property, which is why it may be telling that they choose to redundantly emphasize it separately. Perhaps because they were changing the nature of tithing to income rather than surplus/interest/profit as defined by the contemporary dictionary at the time.

You also don't have statements by Joseph. It was probably clear to him since he apparently didn't feel the need to elaborate. Also others understood well enough too otherwise they would have drilled him for clarification.

Again, the point is that you have no real evidence that the 12 were changing how tithing was interpreted. I get that you believe this is what was going on, but without a statement by Joseph Smith to compare it to, you don't really have a case. And it's still quite bizarre that you reject the idea that the 12 were merely reaffirming what Joseph had taught them about tithing in 1844, but then insist that Orson Hyde's 1847 statement was him reaffirming what Joseph had taught.

As for old Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary, one of his definitions for interest is:Regard to private profit.

Some common synonyms for profit are: income, earning, and interest. https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/profit

Which means that the 12 defining interest as income is completely reasonable, since the two are synonyms. https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/income

[LDS Watchman]

The best defense by very good apologists such as yourself are deceptive and weak. This gives confidence that the position you are defending is not actually the truth.

Can you please provide some examples of what you believe are deceptive and weak arguments of mine?

[Robin Hood]

Why do you care?

Seriously? The guy rails against the church night and day and accuses BY of hijacking the church and the modern leaders of teaching falsehoods. But then turns around and dismisses all statements by Joseph Smith that are problematic for his desired narrative. It's super annoying.

You've lost me... why do you care again?

Why do you care why I care?

I don't give a flying fig.

[Robin Hood]

The best defense by very good apologists such as yourself are deceptive and weak. This gives confidence that the position you are defending is not actually the truth.

Can you please provide some examples of what you believe are deceptive and weak arguments of mine?

Have a look back at the arguments you've made... there you go.

[ransomme]

"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

Is money not property, too? (hint: yes is is) But since you are apparently confused about this, you can understand why the 12 felt the need to clarify this.

"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."

How do you know they changed what God intended and what Joseph understood? Unless you have a statement by Joseph Smith defining interest as anything besides income, you really don't have an argument.

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.

This is irrelevant as we're discussing tithing post the revelation in section 119.

A fun fact it's not meant to be anything other than for fun. Your attack on that may show that you might be have a disagreeable nature.

Also slow your roll. You were the one who didn't understand the difference between deficit and debt and its effects on avioliitto to pay. Now yes money is property, which is why it may be telling that they choose to redundantly emphasize it separately. Perhaps because they were changing the nature of tithing to income rather than surplus/interest/profit as defined by the contemporary dictionary at the time.

You also don't have statements by Joseph. It was probably clear to him since he apparently didn't feel the need to elaborate. Also others understood well enough too otherwise they would have drilled him for clarification.

Again, the point is that you have no real evidence that the 12 were changing how tithing was interpreted. I get that you believe this is what was going on, but without a statement by Joseph Smith to compare it to, you don't really have a case. And it's still quite bizarre that you reject the idea that the 12 were merely reaffirming what Joseph had taught them about tithing in 1844, but then insist that Orson Hyde's 1847 statement was him reaffirming what Joseph had taught.

As for old Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary, one of his definitions for interest is:Regard to private profit.

Some common synonyms for profit are: income, earning, and interest. https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/profit

Which means that the 12 defining interest as income is completely reasonable, since the two are synonyms. https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/income

I have no evidence, you have no evidence. And...? That's why I am looking at the pattern, other scripture, harmony with principles of compassion, charity, & love, etc. I see a difference in approach here. I posit that I am looking more at the bigger picture and context, while you are appealing to authority and trying to focus more narrowly on a specific narrative.

Lol, so now you don't want to look at the actual meaning of words but you want to shift outward to possible synonyms? How many degrees of separation do you want to go to find a branch that you can cling onto?
Also, it is more reasonable to look at the actual definition, to examine the practice to see how it was practiced and how it changed over time.

I must applaud you however on your persistence, your aptitude for rationalization and ability dismiss inconvenient facts and statements.

[ransomme]

Follow the Prophet:

Brigham Young doubted that half the members of the church paid tithing, and he himself "sometimes [paid] a little, but not as much as I should." - Conversation between the former assistant Assessor of 8th Division District of Utah and Brigham Young (Dec. 31, 1870), supra note 183.

[Reluctant Watchman]

No, I just disagree with your assessments.

No, that's not it. If it was, you would provide an alternate explanation for what he said instead of just ignoring or rejectinh what Joseph Smith said.

You think Joseph was a polygamist, why would I believe your assessments of what Joseph taught?

So basically you just ignore or reject all statements by Joseph Smith you don't like the same way you ignore or reject all evidence that he was a polygamist.

Yeah, that's a great way to both determine truth and to convince others that you've got it.

Nope, just you.

[LDS Watchman]

Is money not property, too? (hint: yes is is) But since you are apparently confused about this, you can understand why the 12 felt the need to clarify this.




How do you know they changed what God intended and what Joseph understood? Unless you have a statement by Joseph Smith defining interest as anything besides income, you really don't have an argument.




This is irrelevant as we're discussing tithing post the revelation in section 119.

A fun fact it's not meant to be anything other than for fun. Your attack on that may show that you might be have a disagreeable nature.

Also slow your roll. You were the one who didn't understand the difference between deficit and debt and its effects on avioliitto to pay. Now yes money is property, which is why it may be telling that they choose to redundantly emphasize it separately. Perhaps because they were changing the nature of tithing to income rather than surplus/interest/profit as defined by the contemporary dictionary at the time.

You also don't have statements by Joseph. It was probably clear to him since he apparently didn't feel the need to elaborate. Also others understood well enough too otherwise they would have drilled him for clarification.

Again, the point is that you have no real evidence that the 12 were changing how tithing was interpreted. I get that you believe this is what was going on, but without a statement by Joseph Smith to compare it to, you don't really have a case. And it's still quite bizarre that you reject the idea that the 12 were merely reaffirming what Joseph had taught them about tithing in 1844, but then insist that Orson Hyde's 1847 statement was him reaffirming what Joseph had taught.

As for old Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary, one of his definitions for interest is:Regard to private profit.

Some common synonyms for profit are: income, earning, and interest. https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/profit

Which means that the 12 defining interest as income is completely reasonable, since the two are synonyms. https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/income

I have no evidence, you have no evidence. And...? That's why I am looking at the pattern, other scripture, harmony with principles of compassion, charity, & love, etc. I see a difference in approach here. I posit that I am looking more at the bigger picture and context, while you are appealing to authority and trying to focus more narrowly on a specific narrative.

Lol, so now you don't want to look at the actual meaning of words but you want to shift outward to possible synonyms? How many degrees of separation do you want to go to find a branch that you can cling onto?
Also, it is more reasonable to look at the actual definition, to examine the practice to see how it was practiced and how it changed over time.

I must applaud you however on your persistence, your aptitude for rationalization and ability dismiss inconvenient facts and statements.

Well, I mean since one of the definitions of interest in the 1828 dictionary is profit, and interest, income, and profit are actual synonyms of each other, I would say that I do have actual evidence that the 12 apostles were not changing the meaning of tithing.

One of us is most certainly ignoring inconvenient facts and statements, but it's not me.

[LDS Watchman]

No, that's not it. If it was, you would provide an alternate explanation for what he said instead of just ignoring or rejectinh what Joseph Smith said.

You think Joseph was a polygamist, why would I believe your assessments of what Joseph taught?

So basically you just ignore or reject all statements by Joseph Smith you don't like the same way you ignore or reject all evidence that he was a polygamist.

Yeah, that's a great way to both determine truth and to convince others that you've got it.

Nope, just you.

You're still ignoring and rejecting all statements by JS and scriptures you don't like.

[Reluctant Watchman]

You think Joseph was a polygamist, why would I believe your assessments of what Joseph taught?

So basically you just ignore or reject all statements by Joseph Smith you don't like the same way you ignore or reject all evidence that he was a polygamist.

Yeah, that's a great way to both determine truth and to convince others that you've got it.

Nope, just you.

You're still ignoring and rejecting all statements by JS and scriptures you don't like.

No, just your interpretation. You quote men who lied about Joseph.

[LDS Watchman]

Follow the Prophet:

Brigham Young doubted that half the members of the church paid tithing, and he himself "sometimes [paid] a little, but not as much as I should." - Conversation between the former assistant Assessor of 8th Division District of Utah and Brigham Young (Dec. 31, 1870), supra note 183.

This is clearly a cherry picked out of context quote. Please provide the full quote, or at least the direct source, so we can assess the context.

And if we take this cherry picked quote at face value, it should be noted, that just like Joseph Smith, Brigham's finances were intermingled with the finances of the church, so it was I'm sure quite difficult for him to know exactly what his personal income was. Per D&C 119, one of the purposes of tithing is to pay the debts of the First Presidency.

[LDS Watchman]

So basically you just ignore or reject all statements by Joseph Smith you don't like the same way you ignore or reject all evidence that he was a polygamist.

Yeah, that's a great way to both determine truth and to convince others that you've got it.

Nope, just you.

You're still ignoring and rejecting all statements by JS and scriptures you don't like.

No, just your interpretation. You quote men who lied about Joseph.

So yes, you reject every documented statement by JS you don't like, just like you reject all documented evidence that he was a polygamist.

Like I said, that sure is a great way to determine truth and to convince others that you have it.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Nope, just you.

You're still ignoring and rejecting all statements by JS and scriptures you don't like.

No, just your interpretation. You quote men who lied about Joseph.

So yes, you reject every documented statement by JS you don't like, just like you reject all documented evidence that he was a polygamist.

Like I said, that sure is a great way to determine truth and to convince others that you have it.

What do you not get about this back/forth? I trust Joseph in many instances. I also believe many men and women lied about him. I also don’t trust your interpretation of what he said. I’m done discussing this with you.

[LDS Watchman]

You're still ignoring and rejecting all statements by JS and scriptures you don't like.

No, just your interpretation. You quote men who lied about Joseph.

So yes, you reject every documented statement by JS you don't like, just like you reject all documented evidence that he was a polygamist.

Like I said, that sure is a great way to determine truth and to convince others that you have it.

What do you not get about this back/forth? I trust Joseph in many instances. I also believe many men and women lied about him. I also don’t trust your interpretation of what he said. I’m done discussing this with you.

So you simply pick and choose what to believe and reject or ignore all statements by JS and other evidence you don't like. That's what I keep saying.