Tithing - we expect to see the day when we will not have to ask you for one dollar.. Joseph F. Smith, 1907

[nvr]

Interesting. Below is Joseph F. Smith speaking at a general conference in 1907. Considering how tithing was previously implemented in church history and this comment, the emphasis on paying tithing appears more or less to follow the current need of the church rather than being any strict principal-based requirement. Is this summation accurate?

... I want to say to you, we may not be able to reach it right away, but we expect to see the day when we will not have to ask you for one dollar of donation for any purpose, except that which you vol- unteer to give of your own accord, because we will have tithes suffi- cient in the storehouse of the Lord to pay everything that is needful for the advancement of the king- dom of God. I want to live to see that day, if the Lord will spare my life. It does not make any differ- ence, though, so far as that is con- cerned, whether I live or not. That is the true policy, the true purpose of the Lord in the management of the affairs of His Church.

[Artaxerxes]

The amount that we voluntarily give of our own accord IS tithing. What he was talking about what the special requests for money from members for ward budgets, building funds, temple funds, etc.

[nvr]

He was talking about tithing in the lead up to that quote:

I want to say another thing to you, and I do so by way of congratulation, and that is, that we have, by the blessing of the Lord and the faithfulness of the Saints in paying their tithing, been able to pay off our bonded indebted- ness. Today the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints owes not a dollar that it cannot pay at once. At last we are in a position that we can pay as we go. We do not have to borrow any more, and we wont have to if the Latter-day Saints continue to live their religion and observe this law of tithing, It is the law of revenue to the Church. Furthermore, I want to say to you, we may not be able to reach it ripht away, but we expect to see the day when we will not have to ask you for one dollar of donation for any purpose, except that which you vol- unteer to give of your own accord , because we will have tithes suffi- cient in the storehouse of the Lord to pay everything that is needful for the advancement of the king- dom of God.

Given that tithing was collected in various ways and it's payment emphasized especially when financial needs of church were critical, I think it's been utilized as a fund-raising mechanism with the volume turned up as needed. It should be based on increase, anyways (which is different than how it's interpreted now).

[Christianlee]

The amount that we voluntarily give of our own accord IS tithing. What he was talking about what the special requests for money from members for ward budgets, building funds, temple funds, etc.

Why do you continue to make that nonsensical argument which completely ignores what he said? He was talking about asking for any donation for any purpose. He didn’t specify ward budgets, etc. He was specifically talking about tithes. You are purposely misinterpreting what was said.

[Artaxerxes]

The amount that we voluntarily give of our own accord IS tithing. What he was talking about what the special requests for money from members for ward budgets, building funds, temple funds, etc.

Why do you continue to make that nonsensical argument which completely ignores what he said? He was talking about asking for any donation for any purpose. He didn’t specify ward budgets, etc. He was specifically talking about tithes. You are purposely misinterpreting what was said.

No. He specifically says that the tithes will be sufficient to provide for the church. He's specifically saying that they will continue to gather tithes. He's talking about them asking for additional money, which was the practice back then. He's perfectly clear.

[nvr]

I see it as alluding to a transition to voluntary tithing basis. Dunno, maybe I missed his meaning.

[Artaxerxes]

I see it as alluding to a transition to voluntary tithing basis. Dunno, maybe I missed his meaning.

He always viewed tithing as voluntary.

"The observance of the law of tithing is voluntary. I can pay my tithing or not, as I choose. It is a matter of choice with me, whether I will do it or not do it...."
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... 1?lang=eng

[Narnia]

The amount that we voluntarily give of our own accord IS tithing. What he was talking about what the special requests for money from members for ward budgets, building funds, temple funds, etc.

Why do you continue to make that nonsensical argument which completely ignores what he said? He was talking about asking for any donation for any purpose. He didn’t specify ward budgets, etc. He was specifically talking about tithes. You are purposely misinterpreting what was said.

No. He specifically says that the tithes will be sufficient to provide for the church. He's specifically saying that they will continue to gather tithes. He's talking about them asking for additional money, which was the practice back then. He's perfectly clear.

Amen to that.

[nvr]

I see it as alluding to a transition to voluntary tithing basis. Dunno, maybe I missed his meaning.

He always viewed tithing as voluntary.

"The observance of the law of tithing is voluntary. I can pay my tithing or not, as I choose. It is a matter of choice with me, whether I will do it or not do it...."
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... 1?lang=eng

It seems it was used as a measure of faithfulness, to the degree that being a full tithe payer was an important part of being temple worthy. Your not going to see members' donations to the humanitarian aid or ward missionary funds used as gauges for worthiness.

So if it's voluntary, why treat it differently than other donations? Joseph F. Smith's comments imply it's sometimes been given extra weight as a worthiness issue as the church's needs demand. I don't think laws based on eternal principles really change, so it bothers me to see that, leadership might ever use any 'color of authority' to alter tithing into a worthiness measuring stick based solely on the condition of the church's balance sheet.

Tangentially, after the revelation making up section 119 was received in Joseph's time, Bishop Partridge described tithing's implementation: a tenth of the interest earned on imputed income. That is, the income that could be earned if one was to invest the value of their property. As few members had salaries back then, this made sense for them.

“If a man is worth a $1000, the interest on that would be $60, and one/10. of the interest will be of course $6.— thus you see the plan.” - From Bishop Partridge in a letter days after the revelation was received ( six percent was a common interest rate at the time.)

https://kutv.com/news/local/new-histori ... ds-tithing
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... e?lang=eng

This method fits with the definition of "interest", which, then, was understood as "surplus advantage". I think we may have been mistaken to construe a true tithe as a tenth of one's income. Paying on our increase, or surplus at the end of the year after our essential needs are met seems more in the spirit of the revelation given and it's implementation.

[Artaxerxes]

I see it as alluding to a transition to voluntary tithing basis. Dunno, maybe I missed his meaning.

He always viewed tithing as voluntary.

"The observance of the law of tithing is voluntary. I can pay my tithing or not, as I choose. It is a matter of choice with me, whether I will do it or not do it...."
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... 1?lang=eng

It seems it was used as a measure of faithfulness, to the degree that being a full tithe payer was an important part of being temple worthy. Your not going to see members' donations to the humanitarian aid or ward missionary funds used as gauges for worthiness.

So if it's voluntary, why treat it differently than other donations? Joseph F. Smith's comments imply it's sometimes been given extra weight as a worthiness issue as the church's needs demand. I don't think laws based on eternal principles really change, so it bothers me to see that, leadership might ever use any 'color of authority' to alter tithing into a worthiness measuring stick based solely on the condition of the church's balance sheet.

Tangentially, after the revelation making up section 119 was received in Joseph's time, Bishop Partridge described tithing's implementation: a tenth of the interest earned on imputed income. That is, the income that could be earned if one was to invest the value of their property. As few members had salaries back then, this made sense for them.

“If a man is worth a $1000, the interest on that would be $60, and one/10. of the interest will be of course $6.— thus you see the plan.” - From Bishop Partridge in a letter days after the revelation was received ( six percent was a common interest rate at the time.)

https://kutv.com/news/local/new-histori ... ds-tithing
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... e?lang=eng

This method fits with the definition of "interest", which, then, was understood as "surplus advantage". I think we may have been mistaken to construe a true tithe as a tenth of one's income. Paying on our increase, or surplus at the end of the year after our essential needs are met seems more in the spirit of the revelation given and it's implementation.

It was treated differently. The bishop used to go to people's homes and tell them the amount of the ward budget they were expected to pay. Tithing was never treated that way.

It was always used as a measure of worthiness. The only thing that we know Joseph Smith asked about before signing a temple recommend was tithing. (It's safe to assume he asked about other things, but that's the one we know for sure).

Bishop Partridge's statement isn't contrary to the current understanding. We don't tithe on someone's net worth. Back in the 1800s, wealth and income were heavily tied to assets, especially land. If someone's income/interest from owning their property is 6%, then that's what they would pay tithing on now too. In his example, the owner's income wasn't $1,000. That was the value of his property.

Bishop Partridge's letter is not consistent with this "deduct your expenses" view of tithing. The person's increase was 6% of his property. He didn't say that someone should deduct their expenses from their increase from their property.

[nvr]

I see it as alluding to a transition to voluntary tithing basis. Dunno, maybe I missed his meaning.

He always viewed tithing as voluntary.

"The observance of the law of tithing is voluntary. I can pay my tithing or not, as I choose. It is a matter of choice with me, whether I will do it or not do it...."
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... 1?lang=eng

It seems it was used as a measure of faithfulness, to the degree that being a full tithe payer was an important part of being temple worthy. Your not going to see members' donations to the humanitarian aid or ward missionary funds used as gauges for worthiness.

So if it's voluntary, why treat it differently than other donations? Joseph F. Smith's comments imply it's sometimes been given extra weight as a worthiness issue as the church's needs demand. I don't think laws based on eternal principles really change, so it bothers me to see that, leadership might ever use any 'color of authority' to alter tithing into a worthiness measuring stick based solely on the condition of the church's balance sheet.

Tangentially, after the revelation making up section 119 was received in Joseph's time, Bishop Partridge described tithing's implementation: a tenth of the interest earned on imputed income. That is, the income that could be earned if one was to invest the value of their property. As few members had salaries back then, this made sense for them.

“If a man is worth a $1000, the interest on that would be $60, and one/10. of the interest will be of course $6.— thus you see the plan.” - From Bishop Partridge in a letter days after the revelation was received ( six percent was a common interest rate at the time.)

https://kutv.com/news/local/new-histori ... ds-tithing
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... e?lang=eng

This method fits with the definition of "interest", which, then, was understood as "surplus advantage". I think we may have been mistaken to construe a true tithe as a tenth of one's income. Paying on our increase, or surplus at the end of the year after our essential needs are met seems more in the spirit of the revelation given and it's implementation.

It was treated differently. The bishop used to go to people's homes and tell them the amount of the ward budget they were expected to pay. Tithing was never treated that way.

It was always used as a measure of worthiness. The only thing that we know Joseph Smith asked about before signing a temple recommend was tithing. (It's safe to assume he asked about other things, but that's the one we know for sure).

Bishop Partridge's statement isn't contrary to the current understanding. We don't tithe on someone's net worth. Back in the 1800s, wealth and income were heavily tied to assets, especially land. If someone's income/interest from owning their property is 6%, then that's what they would pay tithing on now too. In his example, the owner's income wasn't $1,000. That was the value of his property.

Bishop Partridge's letter is not consistent with this "deduct your expenses" view of tithing. The person's increase was 6% of his property. He didn't say that someone should deduct their expenses from their increase from their property.

They earned comparitively little cash from their land - farmers ate what they grew and bartered for much of the rest of what else they needed. The concept described by Bishop Partridge is a tithe on imputed interest, or on interest not actually received. They would estimate what could be earned by investing the value of their property at the going interest rate, say 6%. So, like he describes, a man who's property is valued at $1000, would, if this were invested, net him $60 a year. The tithing of $6 was determined then on this imputed (unreceived) interest. Because few had salaries, this is the method they adopted. And it fit with the spirit of tithing on interest. In our time, applying tithing based on annual "interest", the word used in D&C 119, indeed means considering our 'surplus advantage'. It's intended to operate just like a business which calculates profit (and taxes) after all expenses are paid.

It sounds like you're attempting to contradict my points without actually reading or trying to understand them.

[Artaxerxes]

He always viewed tithing as voluntary.

"The observance of the law of tithing is voluntary. I can pay my tithing or not, as I choose. It is a matter of choice with me, whether I will do it or not do it...."
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... 1?lang=eng

It seems it was used as a measure of faithfulness, to the degree that being a full tithe payer was an important part of being temple worthy. Your not going to see members' donations to the humanitarian aid or ward missionary funds used as gauges for worthiness.

So if it's voluntary, why treat it differently than other donations? Joseph F. Smith's comments imply it's sometimes been given extra weight as a worthiness issue as the church's needs demand. I don't think laws based on eternal principles really change, so it bothers me to see that, leadership might ever use any 'color of authority' to alter tithing into a worthiness measuring stick based solely on the condition of the church's balance sheet.

Tangentially, after the revelation making up section 119 was received in Joseph's time, Bishop Partridge described tithing's implementation: a tenth of the interest earned on imputed income. That is, the income that could be earned if one was to invest the value of their property. As few members had salaries back then, this made sense for them.

“If a man is worth a $1000, the interest on that would be $60, and one/10. of the interest will be of course $6.— thus you see the plan.” - From Bishop Partridge in a letter days after the revelation was received ( six percent was a common interest rate at the time.)

https://kutv.com/news/local/new-histori ... ds-tithing
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... e?lang=eng

This method fits with the definition of "interest", which, then, was understood as "surplus advantage". I think we may have been mistaken to construe a true tithe as a tenth of one's income. Paying on our increase, or surplus at the end of the year after our essential needs are met seems more in the spirit of the revelation given and it's implementation.

It was treated differently. The bishop used to go to people's homes and tell them the amount of the ward budget they were expected to pay. Tithing was never treated that way.

It was always used as a measure of worthiness. The only thing that we know Joseph Smith asked about before signing a temple recommend was tithing. (It's safe to assume he asked about other things, but that's the one we know for sure).

Bishop Partridge's statement isn't contrary to the current understanding. We don't tithe on someone's net worth. Back in the 1800s, wealth and income were heavily tied to assets, especially land. If someone's income/interest from owning their property is 6%, then that's what they would pay tithing on now too. In his example, the owner's income wasn't $1,000. That was the value of his property.

Bishop Partridge's letter is not consistent with this "deduct your expenses" view of tithing. The person's increase was 6% of his property. He didn't say that someone should deduct their expenses from their increase from their property.

They earned comparitively little cash from their land - farmers ate what they grew and bartered for much of the rest of what else they needed. The concept described by Bishop Partridge is a tithe on imputed interest, or on interest not actually received. They would estimate what could be earned by investing the value of their property at the going interest rate, say 6%. So, like he describes, a man who's property is valued at $1000, would, if this were invested, net him $60 a year. The tithing of $6 was determined then on this imputed (unreceived) interest. Because few had salaries, this is the method they adopted. And it fit with the spirit of tithing on interest. In our time, applying tithing based on annual "interest", the word used in D&C 119, indeed means considering our 'surplus advantage'. It's intended to operate just like a business which calculates profit (and taxes) after all expenses are paid.

It sounds like you're attempting to contradict my points without actually reading or trying to understand them.

Imputed income was one way of calculating income. It didn't, as I said, allow for the deduction of expenses, as you are advocating.

And it was not the "method they adopted." Then, as now, there was a wide difference of opinion about how tithing should be calculated. And then, as now, the church didn't send out accountants to enforce a particular method.

Here are some of the views on tithing:

"But as regards the law of tithing, it is in force upon the poor as well as the rich, and it seems that it acts almost unequally in some respects. There is a widow, whose income is ten dollars; she pays one for tithing, and then has to appeal to the Bishop for support. Here is a rich man who has an income of one hundred thousand dollars, and pays ten thousand for his tithing. There remains ninety thousand, and he does not need it, but the poor widow requires much more than she had before complying with the law of tithing." - Lorenzo Snow, https://jod.mrm.org/20/361

"I look upon this law of tithing as an equitable law: it comes alike upon the rich and the poor. The poor person who pays his ten dollars tithing gives as much in proportion as the richest man in the community. The rich gives no more than a tenth, and the poorest gives no less. We are all alike, then, in this respect when we observe this law of tithing; and it should be strictly observed by us, if we want the blessings of God to rest upon us." - George Q Cannon, Tithing, JoD, vol. 15, pp. 145-157

"Says one, “Here is a poor widow that does not owe any tithing; there is a poor brother who is lame and cannot work who does not owe any tithing.” Don't they? Let us see. The paying of tithing, like every other ordinance, has its peculiar blessings, and what are they? In the receipt which the Prophet Joseph Smith gave to me in Nauvoo, signed by himself and the tithing clerk, he stated that having paid my tithing in full to date, I was entitled to the benefits of the baptismal font, which had just been dedicated in the basement of that Temple. Do not this poor widow and that lame, unfortunate brother need the benefits of the baptismal font for their deceased kindred just as much as the rich, the sound and the fortunate? I think they do. How then can they obtain a right and title to their blessings? The Lord has instituted a means by which they may receive their blessings by the payment of their tithing. The first Thursday of every month is a Fast day, for the Saints to gather together in prayer and fasting, and to bring their offerings for the poor, that the afflicted and unfortunate may not lack for food or clothing, and the comforts of life. Now, if a poor man received one hundred pounds of flour or any other gift, it is his privilege to pay one-tenth of it as tithing, and have it credited to him on the book as a tithing payer, and in this way he pays just as much as the man who pays one hundred dollars. The same with the poor sister who receives her aid from the Relief Society. She can pay her tithing in the same way—have her name recorded on the books, and thus acquire the right to be baptized for her dead kindred." - Franklin D Richards, https://jod.mrm.org/26/296

[darknesstolight]

The amount that we voluntarily give of our own accord IS tithing. What he was talking about what the special requests for money from members for ward budgets, building funds, temple funds, etc.

No it isnt. The Church didn't call it "declare the money you give voluntarily". Tithing is required for temple attendance. LDS tithing is attached to a penalty that is enforced by leaders in the Church. According to official LDS doctrine temple attendance is required for highest degrees of glory. Taking away your temple recommend is a penalty exacted in a legal and literal way by humans who are leading a big club with bylwas but to the members its God Kingdom on Earth and tithing is taught as a requirement.

You are misleading your audience.

Also you are misquoting the man. He said "for any purpose".

...

[darknesstolight]

The amount that we voluntarily give of our own accord IS tithing. What he was talking about what the special requests for money from members for ward budgets, building funds, temple funds, etc.

Why do you continue to make that nonsensical argument which completely ignores what he said? He was talking about asking for any donation for any purpose. He didn’t specify ward budgets, etc. He was specifically talking about tithes. You are purposely misinterpreting what was said.

No. He specifically says that the tithes will be sufficient to provide for the church. He's specifically saying that they will continue to gather tithes. He's talking about them asking for additional money, which was the practice back then. He's perfectly clear.

Then why are you explaining anything if it's perfectly clear? Just quote the words that plainly say what YOU are saying from him.

...

[Artaxerxes]

The amount that we voluntarily give of our own accord IS tithing. What he was talking about what the special requests for money from members for ward budgets, building funds, temple funds, etc.

No it isnt. The Church didn't call it "declare the money you give voluntarily". Tithing is required for temple attendance. LDS tithing is attached to a penalty that is enforced by leaders in the Church. According to official LDS doctrine temple attendance is required for highest degrees of glory. Taking away your temple recommend is a penalty exacted in a legal and literal way by humans who are leading a big club with bylwas but to the members its God Kingdom on Earth and tithing is taught as a requirement.

You are misleading your audience.

Also you are misquoting the man. He said "for any purpose".

...

No, that is exactly what Joseph F Smith called it. He said "The observance of the law of tithing is voluntary. I can pay my tithing or not, as I choose. It is a matter of choice with me, whether I will do it or not do it...."

No, you are misquoting it. There's a very important word that came after the part you cherry picked out. "for any purpose, except that which you volunteer to give of your own accord , because we will have tithes sufficient in the storehouse of the Lord."

Except is usually an important word to understanding the whole idea. I understand why you had to excuse it from your quote to support your point.

[Artaxerxes]

The amount that we voluntarily give of our own accord IS tithing. What he was talking about what the special requests for money from members for ward budgets, building funds, temple funds, etc.

Why do you continue to make that nonsensical argument which completely ignores what he said? He was talking about asking for any donation for any purpose. He didn’t specify ward budgets, etc. He was specifically talking about tithes. You are purposely misinterpreting what was said.

No. He specifically says that the tithes will be sufficient to provide for the church. He's specifically saying that they will continue to gather tithes. He's talking about them asking for additional money, which was the practice back then. He's perfectly clear.

Then why are you explaining anything if it's perfectly clear? Just quote the words that plainly say what YOU are saying from him.

...

The quote is clear, but some have chosen to wrest it to support their own ideas, as you so often do.

[nvr]

The imputed interest formula was at least the method they initially adopted. artaxerxes is correct that in the early church there were various methods followed and different views but in practice these all mostly appear to have resulted in a manageable low overall burden compared to 10% of income as it’s put into practice today.

Consider someone with a net worth of 500k today (their house equity plus 401k) . In the
imputed interest method, that sum hypothetically invested at 7.5% ( a realistic avg rate of return in todays markets) would yield 35k. Tithing on that would be $3500.
That same person earning 100k with the currently understood method of tithing payment would expect to pay roughly $10k — a significantly larger amount.

Deducting essential living expenses of 60k leaves $40k and a tithing figure of 4K. This is a lot closer to the original method and manageable. Someone who’s essential expenses consume all their income, would, of course, have no obligation.

So, when did the method of determining tithing get changed to this high-yielding income-based formula? Did it coincide with any unexpected new budgeting need?
If so, we should have a sober reexamination of what is the Lord’s expected definition of tithing. I don’t think it was meant to burden the saints unduly but to simply to help cover the costs of buildings, and upkeep etc.

It makes sense that it was always meant to be based on our annual surplus which implies after essential expenses.

[nvr]

... It was always used as a measure of worthiness. ...

... He always viewed tithing as voluntary. ...

Well, we'll, obviously, have to, as a church, straighten this out.

[darknesstolight]

Why do you continue to make that nonsensical argument which completely ignores what he said? He was talking about asking for any donation for any purpose. He didn’t specify ward budgets, etc. He was specifically talking about tithes. You are purposely misinterpreting what was said.

No. He specifically says that the tithes will be sufficient to provide for the church. He's specifically saying that they will continue to gather tithes. He's talking about them asking for additional money, which was the practice back then. He's perfectly clear.

Then why are you explaining anything if it's perfectly clear? Just quote the words that plainly say what YOU are saying from him.

...

The quote is clear, but some have chosen to wrest it to support their own ideas, as you so often do.

So, you are doing everyone a favor by explaining to them something that is very clear because some people wrest things that are plain and turn them in to something else?

...

[darknesstolight]

The amount that we voluntarily give of our own accord IS tithing. What he was talking about what the special requests for money from members for ward budgets, building funds, temple funds, etc.

No it isnt. The Church didn't call it "declare the money you give voluntarily". Tithing is required for temple attendance. LDS tithing is attached to a penalty that is enforced by leaders in the Church. According to official LDS doctrine temple attendance is required for highest degrees of glory. Taking away your temple recommend is a penalty exacted in a legal and literal way by humans who are leading a big club with bylwas but to the members its God Kingdom on Earth and tithing is taught as a requirement.

You are misleading your audience.

Also you are misquoting the man. He said "for any purpose".

...

No, that is exactly what Joseph F Smith called it. He said "The observance of the law of tithing is voluntary. I can pay my tithing or not, as I choose. It is a matter of choice with me, whether I will do it or not do it...."

No, you are misquoting it. There's a very important word that came after the part you cherry picked out. "for any purpose, except that which you volunteer to give of your own accord , because we will have tithes sufficient in the storehouse of the Lord."

Except is usually an important word to understanding the whole idea. I understand why you had to excuse it from your quote to support your point.

The fact that you have resorted to ad hominems in both of your responses reveals to me that your argument is weak and you are afraid of me.

...

[Artaxerxes]

The amount that we voluntarily give of our own accord IS tithing. What he was talking about what the special requests for money from members for ward budgets, building funds, temple funds, etc.

No it isnt. The Church didn't call it "declare the money you give voluntarily". Tithing is required for temple attendance. LDS tithing is attached to a penalty that is enforced by leaders in the Church. According to official LDS doctrine temple attendance is required for highest degrees of glory. Taking away your temple recommend is a penalty exacted in a legal and literal way by humans who are leading a big club with bylwas but to the members its God Kingdom on Earth and tithing is taught as a requirement.

You are misleading your audience.

Also you are misquoting the man. He said "for any purpose".

...

No, that is exactly what Joseph F Smith called it. He said "The observance of the law of tithing is voluntary. I can pay my tithing or not, as I choose. It is a matter of choice with me, whether I will do it or not do it...."

No, you are misquoting it. There's a very important word that came after the part you cherry picked out. "for any purpose, except that which you volunteer to give of your own accord , because we will have tithes sufficient in the storehouse of the Lord."

Except is usually an important word to understanding the whole idea. I understand why you had to excuse it from your quote to support your point.

The fact that you have resorted to ad hominems in both of your responses reveals to me that your argument is weak and you are afraid of me.

...

No, it just means I remember your pathetic arguments in which you contort the scriptures beyond recognize to support whatever thought you have that day.

[darknesstolight]

No it isnt. The Church didn't call it "declare the money you give voluntarily". Tithing is required for temple attendance. LDS tithing is attached to a penalty that is enforced by leaders in the Church. According to official LDS doctrine temple attendance is required for highest degrees of glory. Taking away your temple recommend is a penalty exacted in a legal and literal way by humans who are leading a big club with bylwas but to the members its God Kingdom on Earth and tithing is taught as a requirement.

You are misleading your audience.

Also you are misquoting the man. He said "for any purpose".

...

No, that is exactly what Joseph F Smith called it. He said "The observance of the law of tithing is voluntary. I can pay my tithing or not, as I choose. It is a matter of choice with me, whether I will do it or not do it...."

No, you are misquoting it. There's a very important word that came after the part you cherry picked out. "for any purpose, except that which you volunteer to give of your own accord , because we will have tithes sufficient in the storehouse of the Lord."

Except is usually an important word to understanding the whole idea. I understand why you had to excuse it from your quote to support your point.

The fact that you have resorted to ad hominems in both of your responses reveals to me that your argument is weak and you are afraid of me.

...

No, it just means I remember your pathetic arguments in which you contort the scriptures beyond recognize to support whatever thought you have that day.

So you admit you are attacking me personally. That is against forum rules and can get you banned AND it's a sign of weakness.

...

[Artaxerxes]

No, that is exactly what Joseph F Smith called it. He said "The observance of the law of tithing is voluntary. I can pay my tithing or not, as I choose. It is a matter of choice with me, whether I will do it or not do it...."

No, you are misquoting it. There's a very important word that came after the part you cherry picked out. "for any purpose, except that which you volunteer to give of your own accord , because we will have tithes sufficient in the storehouse of the Lord."

Except is usually an important word to understanding the whole idea. I understand why you had to excuse it from your quote to support your point.

The fact that you have resorted to ad hominems in both of your responses reveals to me that your argument is weak and you are afraid of me.

...

No, it just means I remember your pathetic arguments in which you contort the scriptures beyond recognize to support whatever thought you have that day.

So you admit you are attacking me personally. That is against forum rules and can get you banned AND it's a sign of weakness.

...

That isn't what I said. I see your reading skills haven't improved in the last month.

[darknesstolight]

The fact that you have resorted to ad hominems in both of your responses reveals to me that your argument is weak and you are afraid of me.

...

No, it just means I remember your pathetic arguments in which you contort the scriptures beyond recognize to support whatever thought you have that day.

So you admit you are attacking me personally. That is against forum rules and can get you banned AND it's a sign of weakness.

...

That isn't what I said. I see your reading skills haven't improved in the last month.

Yeah my reading skills are horrible but that doesn't change the fact that your argument is a twisting of the OP's words and that you have employed dishonorable tactics supposedly because you desire to win an argument. I'm gonna report every time you attack me personally. As a good member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and who "follows the prophet", you ought to respect the rules of the house you are a guest in.

...

[Artaxerxes]

No, it just means I remember your pathetic arguments in which you contort the scriptures beyond recognize to support whatever thought you have that day.

So you admit you are attacking me personally. That is against forum rules and can get you banned AND it's a sign of weakness.

...

That isn't what I said. I see your reading skills haven't improved in the last month.

Yeah my reading skills are horrible but that doesn't change the fact that your argument is a twisting of the OP's words and that you have employed dishonorable tactics supposedly because you desire to win an argument. I'm gonna report every time you attack me personally. As a good member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and who "follows the prophet", you ought to respect the rules of the house you are a guest in.

...

Lol! I always do enjoy when people can dish it out but can't take it.