It seems to me that the difference between hte Humanitarian Fund and the Red Cross is that the Humanitarian Fund is a charity run by the Church. I can’t see how donatining to a charity that happens to be run by the Church is any more or less tithing than donating to one that is not. In my mind either only the tithing fund is tithing or any charitable donation is. I would lean towards the former, as if everyone decided to “tithe” 10% to the Pepetual Education Fund this would be a disaster for the Church. Well, in the first year I guess they could simply cut BYU free and use the PEF to give loans to BYU students paying $30k a year…

ARJ – I can see your point, but technically, I have found nowhere were it says that you have to donate it to the tithing fund. It says you should donate 10% of your increase to the Church as tithing. I really don’t see the difference between the money going to build temples or chapels as opposed to helping in the Humanitarian Fund or PEF. The Church is doling out the cash and, therefore, how is it different?

Danithew – Now I like that fund…. The Check is in the mail…

The “tithing fund” is “tithing.” The other funds are “offerings.” When you pay tithes, that means tithing fund. If you make another donation, it is not a tithe, it is an “offering.” We are obligated to donate 10% of our increase as tithing (to the tithing fund). I don’t think we get to allocate it. The idea that we can allocate it as we choose sounds more like what I’ve heard some protestants do, which for many means not even a specified amount, but rather whatever I feel like, wherever I want.

This reminds me of the story of a man who proudly told his bishop that he gave ten percent every year, but not to the Church. Some went to the Red Cross, some to the local food kitchen, and the rest to various other charities. That, he claimed, was his tithing. The bishop’s response was that the man was awfully generous with somebody else’s (the Lord’s) money.

We pay tithing as tithing, which is then administered by the Council of Tithes, as described in the D&C.

TB – I think you are correct, but nowhere have I seen it specified that your tithe must go into the tithing fund. Fast offering is technically the only scriptural offering mentioned. So are the others offerings or part of a tithe?

Your friend sounds like one of those brilliant people who figures out we don’t have to pay taxes. When it says we need to pay 10% to the Church as “tithing” and then it gives you a form to fill out where one line has “Tithing” in front of it, I don’t think it is really asking too much of our intellectual capacities to figure out it means for us to pay the 10% to the tithing fund. Seriously, are you wondering what the intent is? I am not.

So if they got rid of the other options on the form would that solve the problem?

I’ve had this same conversation with a few of differnt Bishops in the past.

I don’t know about God’s books, but on the LDS Church’s books, a full 10% tithe is only a full 10% tithe when it is paid to the LDS Church. Other donations to the Church or other Charities is well and good… but if you pay 9% of you income to the Church in the form of tithing, and an addition 11% to various charities, you still won’t qualify for a temple recommend. (Having said that, I imagine that such a 20% tithe would probably get you some prime real estate in the Celestial Kingdom.)

While I think ARJ is spot-on in what he is saying, I always try to round up just a little bit on tithing. It makes me uneasy to be exact to the penny with the Lord. I guess that’s my way of saying I sure hope he doesn’t give me exactly what I deserve.

What fund? The Tithing Fund.

Great comments all – this certainly gives me some great discussion points to take back to my friend. The interesting point is that when I have since dug a little deeper the primary reason for his not wanting to give 10% to the tithing fund was that he was uncomfortable with the “extravagance” he sees the Church spending when it builds a Temple. He feels that money would be better off in the PEF or Humanitarian Fund. So many of you hit the nail on the head – you are a bit quicker than I am.

ARj/Danithew – I guess the question is if one person pays on net and one on gross income are they both full tithe payers when one is probably paying 10% of gross income and the other is paying 6.5% of gross income, but 10% of net income. Both can receive Temple recommends. Does the Lord care? I would guess as long as each believes he is living the principle as they believe then it does not matter.

First, I want to know how this discussion moved so quickly away from the best idea that has appeared here at Mormon Mentality and that is the introduction of the Mormon Mentality Perpetual Blogging Fund by danithew. I am perfectly happy to administer this fund on behalf of my fellow bloggers. As to the other question, about tithing in general, it seems that bulk of the general authorities statements and the general understanding of the church is that tithing should be payed to the tithing fund.

Re: Generously on gross or miserly on net.

God has promised to open the windows of heaven to tithe payers. I was taught to figure my tithing the way I want the Lord to figure my blessings. I’ve learned that the Lord keeps his promises.

Naismith – good point – don’t pay your tithing in coins – pay your parking tickets in pennies.

BROZ – I have never heard anywhere state that it should be on gross or net. So while you may be passionate about gross, I know people who pay on net and seem to receive as many blessings as anyone else. I have heard that “render unto Caeser what is Caeser’s, then pay God”. Take what you want from that I guess.

Paula – that is interesting. Why does your friend pay into the Humanitarian fund instead of tithing? I think that is a perfect example of someone paying their tithe to the Church just not into the tithing fund. So what do people think of that? Technically, it is not incorrect and if her Bishop approves, then good for her. I figure God does not care as long as you are giving to the Church an honest tithe.

Devyn, #27: “I figure God does not care as long as you are giving to the Church an honest tithe.” What is the meaning of “honest” in that sentence? As others have mentioned on this thread, many people (including the every Conference speaker who has addressed the topic) view tithing as the Lord’s money, to do with whatever he will. Telling the Lord that he can’t spend it on BYU, temples, etc seems like:

1) Disagreeing with Apostles et al
2) Not really understanding tithing/unaware of what Apostles have taught
3) Understanding very well, but choosing to ignore that understanding

Help me understand what you mean.

BrianJ – one final point. We must remember that it is really not the Lord determining where all of the money is spent. It is a group of men (who are called by the Lord). They are not infallible and make mistakes. After talking with many people in high leadership positions, many things are done because there is either a need or it makes sense. Was it spiritually prompted or driven? Sometimes, but many times it is practicality that determines it. So I think it is critical to remember that the Apostles (wonderful as they are) are not perfect and make mistakes. Have they made investment mistakes with the Lord’s funds in the past? Yes – see the Nevada silver mine fiasco for an example. Will they make mistakes again – probably. Does it matter? Not really, but the point is that we cannot say the Lord is directing where every dollar is spent, when there is a group of imperfect (albeit much more perfect than I am) running things. Therefore, I am ok with others feeling that they can pay their tithing into the Humanitarian fund if that is where they feel spiritually prompted to place it.

Devyn S: it’s sort of semantics to distinguish between the Lord spending the money and the Apostles spending the money. I get your point and I agree with it, but I think it has limited application. Yes, the Church is run by imperfect men; yes, they make mistakes; yes, we should seek for a direct relationship with God and confirmation of what is right. But at some point we have to decide what we think “prophet, seer, and revelator” means. If we think it means “a bunch of guys who throw out ideas for us to kick around but we always get to determine what is right for ourselves,” then I think we’ve demoted the Apostles to glorified bloggers.

It’s really a question of what kinds of mistakes we think Apostles are capable of. Is spending tithing on BYU a “bad” thing? Maybe. Are the Apostles wrong when they teach that tithing belongs to the Lord? I don’t think so. And that’s really the key issue here (for Paula’s friend): Can I decide how my tithing is spent? The Apostles unanimously teach that that question is itself false, because there is no such thing as “my tithing” since the money belongs to the Lord.

And that is my question in #29: Am I missing some other aspect to this? I’m trying to understand the decision Paula’s friend made.

(The fact that Church leaders can make mistakes with that money is just a test of faith for me: I have to trust that the Lord knew what he was doing when he put his name on a church run by imperfect people, that good things will happen despite mistakes along the way or that things I perceive as mistakes are actually exactly what the Lord wants.)

As for how this relates to my comment about the Church Handbook in #28: the statement of the Church is that no one has authority to distinguish between tithing on net and gross income. It says nothing about whether one can distinguish between tithing and non-tithing. Suppose I told you that instead of writing a check each month for tithing, I decided to visit people in hospitals for several hours and count it as “billable hours”. Visiting the sick is good, but you wouldn’t call that “tithing”, would you?

Well, I donate to the church to the exclusion of most other charities. The reason for that is twofold:

1. No overhead

2. The church doesn’t send me address labels every year asking for more money.

Oh, one other reason. I trust them not to go to the Bahamas with the money.

BrianJ – I think that the key issue for Paula’s friend is that I presumed she prayed, got an answer and talked to her Bishop. No place for me to judge her anymore than I can judge others who pay on gross or net. It is personal and that is the key point to me. As to your question as to what kinds of mistakes are Apostles capable of? Well, there one a member of the 12 who was excommunicated in the 1940s for adultery – basically they are capable of the same kinds of mistakes as we are.

BRoz – I will ignore the first sarcastic comment. I would care if the Church flushed the money down the toilet (which they would not) as that would be a sign there was a serious problem in the leadership. It is a similar theoretical to the “if President Hinckley told me to store mud in my basement I would.” Well it is pointless as first, he would never do that and second, if he did, I would have to pray awfully hard to get an answer to do that one.

Re 36.
“Now, not only am I going to protect my money in tax sheltered accounts but now I can tithing shelter it too. Maybe I can hire some of those Enron Accountants for ideas on how to cheat the Lord.”

Just curious, BRoz, do you pay tithing on the full value of the health insurance your employer provides? For my employees, our firm pays out almost $10,000.00 per year for family coverage, in addition to the premiums and copays each employee pays. If you are so concerned not to cheat the Lord, then shouldn’t each employee be paying taxes on that benefit?

Do you pay tithing on the value of your paid vacation and holiday days? How about your employer’s contribution to a retirement fund?

We pay tithing on our gross before they take out insurance. However, I just realized we haven’t paid it on the perq’s of my husband’s job. Dang. Well, I hope God gives us credit for good intentions. You really can think yourself to death.

You’re right, Devyn. I live in Utah where most of these things are administrated by LDS people, and supported as well. I will donate when it’s $5 or $10 anonymously, but I don’t want to be solicited.

True story (which contradicts my loyalty to the church charities): my former brother-in-law was the ward clerk of their ward in Wyoming. He lost his job and he stole tithing and fast offering money by waiting outside the bishop’s rural mailbox until the mailman came. He stole $4000 before they caught him. Boy, was the ward mad at him. It was a big scandal.

I don’t know how he cashed the checks, but he did.

Gary, #34: Thanks for the thoughtful response. I only wish that you had put it somewhere where I could reply….

Gary, #44: Indeed, why not? You posted it off-site, so I instinctively wanted to respond off-site.

“Devyn asked…for comments and I apologize if you feel my honest answer to Devyn’s question constitutes a condemning statement.”

First, it did come across that way, due to the use of the term “miserly.” Second, Is there no other reason one would pay on net, other than being a miser? Third, apology accepted.

“one-tenth of all my income annually.”

Thanks for clarifying my paraphrase in #28. I appreciate you explaining your reasoning for viewing gross income as the appropriate measure (for you).

“…reported to me on form W-2…”

The definition of “income” on the W-2 is the IRS’s definition, which I’m not convinced is also the Lord’s.

“…if my employer withheld from my paycheck enough money for him to pay my house and car payments, utilities and insurance, [etc]…I could…effectively avoid tithing completely.”

I’m not going to argue an extreme case like the one you present, but suppose we use one that is more realistic: a live-in nanny (or butler or maid). Room and board are included in the terms of the employment, but how would she calculate the tithing on that? Should she? (Fancy house, pool, nice food, eating out with the kids, taking kids to amusement parks—there’s a lot of perks in that job.)

Or another: Stan and Mark get paid ~$30K/yr. Stan pays $7K/yr for health insurance; Mark gets full family health insurance. What is Mark’s gross? What is Stan’s?

“Elder Richard L. Evans…said…”

…nothing definitive on the subject. I don’t disagree with what he said, I just disagree that he distinguishes between net and gross. His statement could easily be read as being directed to people who were only paying on their discretionary income (narrow limits) instead of on net income (which is much “broader” than discretionary).

On the other hand, he may simply have been attacking the idea of trying to find loopholes in tithing payments. In other words, paying on net is okay with him if you reached that decision by trying to figure out what the Lord wants, but not okay if you were trying to figure out how to get away with paying the least amount.

“The question “what is a tithing” was discussed…by Elder Daniel L. Johnson of The Seventy.”

His talk, and the quote from Pres Hunter, support payment on gross or net.

BrianJ, well said. Again.

Thanks all.
Naismith – excellent point. I think we can become so worried about whether we are paying on net or gross or perks or whatever and completely lose the Spirit of the commandment which is pay 10% of your increase (whatever that is).

Paula #40 – I appreciate the additional insight. I applaud your friend for having the guts to stay true to her principles in the face of a very difficult decision.

BrianJ #42 – first, I apologize for insinuating you were being judgemental when I too was judging her actions in the positive. The Apostle story does not have much to do with this post but was put in to demonstrate the importance of recognizing that these are fallible persons no matter how well intentioned and wonderful they may be. As for your questions about the discussion, I think you are correct that it comes down to a couple of points – 1- Not understanding the principle – surely Paula’s friend and my friend do, 2-diagreeing with Apostles/ignoring them – I think these are really in the same category. and 3- flat out not believing in the principle. For me the only answer that makes sense is #2 as if one is in #3, then you don’t pay tithing nor likely attend church. Given that, I must applaud Paula’s friend for doing something that to her is the best way to pay tithing and keep the commandment while staying true to her feelings. It is much more challenging to try to live the Gospel in a way that makes sense for you (e.g., Paula’s friend) than in the traditional way. Net net, I think you are correct in your assetion that it is disgreement with the leading authorities. I don’t see that as necessarily problematic which is where I think we disagree.

Brian J #45 – Nice post. Again I think it goes to Naismith’s point that one can be as detailed about what one pays on as one wants, but don’t generalize that to the rest of the Church. There is no statement net or gross in the Church Handbook and that is really the definitive guide for those members paying tithing, regardless of members personal views on it.

You people keep talking about paying tithing on one’s “increase”. Increase from what? Does that mean if I lose my job and get another one where I don’t make as much I don’t have to pay my annual membership fee to the mormon church?
Rosa Gerth

I stumbled across this discussion today as I was looking for something else on the Internet. Thanks for providing this forum. You made me think. That is always a good thing.

Devyn, I think you are correct that most church leaders would interpret “increase” (sometimes we use the word “interest”) as “income”. What if, instead of interpreting “increase”, we simply took it at face value? In other words, pay 10% of the “increase” in your net worth over the year.
Back in the old tithing-in-kind days, members would pay tithing on the increase in their flocks or herds. It was easy. If there was no increase, there was no tithing. If you had 10 more cows at the end of the year than you had in the beginning, you picked the best cow and led her down to the bishop’s storehouse. The difficulty arose when we transitioned as a people to a modern economy where most people receive a paycheck. Many of us were taught to pay tithing on our gross paycheck, and we have awful feelings of guilt if we pay any less than that. But there are some challenges to this approach.

1. It is very regressive. Notwithstanding value of the story of the widow’s mite, the wealthy pay with discretionary income while the poor pay with grocery money, and bear most of the guilt in the church. They face the bishop once a year and proclaim in front of their wives and children that they are a partial tithe payer because they paid only on the net (or something less than net), rather than the gross. It puts us as a people in a position where a two income couple with two kids may look a whole lot more righteous than a single income family with 8 kids.
2. What if you live in a country with a 75% tax rate? There may not be much left to live on if you pay tithing on the gross.
3. If I own a business (a corporation) that is appreciating and bringing in millions of dollars, but that corporation pays me a salary of only $40,000 per year, do I still pay on my “income”, i.e., pay $4,000 in tithing?

On the other hand, if you pay on 10% of your “increase”, the poor man (a renter), who is poorer and deeper in debt at the end of the year than the beginning of the year would owe no tithing, even though he draws a meager salary. The wealthy man (who owns a mansion that is appreciating rapidly) would owe tithing not only on his “income” but on all of his increase in wealth. The challenge of this approach is, that if we are honest, we may then be required to pay tithing on things such as the appreciation in the value of our home (but maybe I can also deduct the depreciation in the value of my cars). How many people do you know who pay tithing on the proceeds of a house sale where their home has appreciated hundreds of thousands of dollars? This makes some people quickly retreat to the safety of the paycheck tithe.

Just some rambling thoughts. Not intended to be contentious, just something to think about.

“The definition of “income” on the W-2 is the IRS’s definition, which I’m not convinced is also the Lord’s.”

Let me answer that–it’s not. The Lord looks for increase, not income. (The IRS levies a tax which most Americans don’t owe. Don’t believe it? Go look for the law–which is not the code, btw.) The Lord asks for a return on the increase which HE has given us. How many of us who have such things tithe on our garden produce, or the milk from our cow or goat?

“How many people do you know who pay tithing on the proceeds of a house sale where their home has appreciated hundreds of thousands of dollars?”

There is no real appreciation in most cases, since the paper dollar has decreased in value about 10% per year and is now worth 3 cents of what it would buy in 1930.

All that said, tithing, according to what the general authorities have said, is tithing, and offerings are separate. Humanitarian Fund etc are considered offerings and are so stated by the general authorities.

Devyn S.

I too enjoy your posts.

Everyone else,

what if I stopped paying tithing for a few months and then later decided that I don’t like not being a “full tithe payer”. Do you think that I am obligated to go back and add up my income for the 7 months I didn’t pay and then cut a check to my bishop?

I don’t think so. I don’t think the Lord cares one bit. What I think he cares about is that I am willing and eager to move forward (the spirit of giving/obedience)and pay tithing.

another thought/question

If I am your average Joe or Single mother counting every penny and doing the best I can with my $1300 a month INCOME, I doubt the Lord is going to consider me less than a full tithe payer if i only give $130 rather than the $160 based on my gross.

it’s US that get hung up on the dollar amount, not the Lord.

I am glad that this is MY decision to make, not my Bishops, Not the Q12, but mine.

mfranti – thanks. I would agree completely with your comment. It is between us and the Lord and I think we get way too caught up on the infinite details, which was the reason for the post as I think that if my friend decides to pay his tithe to another fund and he and his Bishop feel fine about it – good for them.

SamB – I did not even want to address the 10% comment as it made no sense whatsoever. If inflation is around 3%, the 10% number is only valid if you live in a hig inflation country like Mexico.

Thanks Rosa – I appreciate your perspective, but it is awfully presumptuous of you to assume that all Mormons are gullible. Just because it does not work for you, please don’t apply your perspective to others. Just as your new faith or non-faith works for you, it does not work for me. There are some very intelligent, well-educated and thinking persons who choose to be Mormon. To widely characterize Mormons as gullible is arrogant and insensitive.

1. it is obvious that “tithing” is an obligation for all that have chosen to be Mormons or chosen to remain so
2. the major question for me is the difference between tithing based on increase and tithing based on income
3. taxation is generally an expense for which I receive benefit from in the form of roads, police, etc i.e. goods and services that I need to live in my chosen society
4. if I run a business selling computers and my wholesale + advertising + admin cost etc to purchase a pc is $600 and I sell the pc for $1000 then should I pay $40 or should I pay 10% of the sale price? i.e. $100 or 10% of sale price less wholesale price? i.e. >$40
5. the answer is obvious – pay %10 based on “INCREASE”
6. still confused? – GOOD! quick answers are cheap -considered answers are rarely simple but they do promote brain growth, compassion for others and respect for ones self
7. BTW how may angels can dance on the head of a pin?
ANSWER – as many as want to!

From another Mormon tithing discussion site….I think you may all profit from this.

Many here should get a clue I still pay tithing . . . or should I call it “tribute to ravening wolves”? Right now, it is cheaper for me to pay tithing and support one household, than not pay and support two households; mine and my future ex-wife’s. Hence, as long as I am a victim of extortion I will probably pay something.

Anyway, I thought I would review the last three Genreral Conference talks on tithing. I am sorry for the long post, but Mormonism is a ten billion words in a hundred million little packages of polished and sanitized history and doctrine. It sometimes has to be dealt with in this manner.

For those of you who are in my boat, here is ammunition to pay less than 10 percent of gross. Just don’t get into a big discussion over it. You will win the discussion if you use my little essay, but you may also lose more.

If the essay is too long, just read the five section headings.

The Scriptural and Official Meaning of Tithing © Sarony

1. Introduction – It is Not 10% of Gross
2. The Scriptural Meaning of “Interest” is Excess and Surplus Income
3. The Official Meaning is 10% of Excess; found in “I Have a Question”, “A Statement of the First Presidency”, and “The General Handbook”
4. Harmony of the Scriptural and Official Meanings in Light of Holland’s, Tingey’s, and Hales’s Messages
5. Conclusion – It is an Individual Matter How Much to Pay

1. The last three General Conferences of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have included speeches dedicated to tithing. Jeffery R. Holland delivered a speech in the October, 2001 Conference. Earl C. Tingey delivered a speech in the April, 2002 Conference. And Robert D. Hales delivered a speech in the October, 2002 Conference.

Each of them, on an escalating scale, may have influenced Mormons to think they must pay a tithe on their gross incomes. They don’t.

All inspired latter-day pronouncements on the amount to be tithed, must be in harmony with each other. Otherwise, there is no inspiration.

In sections 2 and 3 of this essay, I will discuss official Mormon scripture and policy, respectively. In section 4, I will review pertinent statements by Holland, Tingey, and Hales, respectively, in view of official Mormon scripture and policy.

What they said, in light of official Mormon scripture and policy may appear deceptive.

1a. Various historical tithing schemes have been discussed in scholarly works. All inspired latter-day pronouncements regarding what exactly is tithed, must be in harmony with each other. Otherwise, they are not inspired. The scope of this essay is directed to official LDS scriptural passages and current official pronouncements from the church.

2. The meaning of what is tithed can be ascertained from Mormon scripture.

2a. The oldest known Mormon expression of tithing is in the Book of Mormon. In Alma (1828-1829) it appears that Abraham paid “tithes of one-tenth part of all he possessed.” Joseph Smith would shed more light and knowledge on this passage later, to clarify that Abraham paid a one-tenth part of his excess (see paragraph 2b). In 3 Nephi 24, Malachi 3 is quoted. There is no definition of tithing in this passage.

2b. Apparently, the first scriptural definition of what exactly is tithed, was given by Smith in his inspired translation (“Joseph Smith Translation” or “JST”) of Genesis 14 (about 1830, see D&C 37:1), which included new verses. Verse 39 states:

“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 HE HAD NEED.” (Emphasis added.)

One could make the argument that Abram paid tithes of all he had, period. But that conclusion is not in harmony with other modern-day passages. (See paragraphs 2d and 2e, and paragraph 4, Comment 6). One could also make the argument that the phrase “more than he had need” is an incidental reference to God’s abundant blessings to Abram, and not a reference to a tithe of the amount more than he had need. But that interpretation requires semantic gymnastics that takes out of context, the phrase “more than he had need”.

The passage in Genesis 14 therefore refers to a tithe on excess. The passage can be found in the Quadruple Combination, on page 798, after the Bible Dictionary, in the section JOSEPH SMITH TRANSLATION. Although the church avoids several of Smith’s translations in the JOSEPH SMITH TRANSLATION, the church has included this one in its official and current book of scripture as authoritative commentary.

The passage in Alma can be harmonized with the passage in Genesis, only if the one-tenth part is one tenth of the amount “more than [Abram] had need.”

2c. Several passages were produced in the Doctrine & Covenants (D&C). But they did not provide a definition of what is tithed. They are D&C 64:23 (1831), 85:3 (1832), and 97:11-12 (1833).

2d. Finally, a definition for the modern church was produced. In D&C 119:3-4 (1838), it states:

“And after that, those who have been thus 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.” (Emphasis added.)

To emphasize what is to be tithed, verse 5 speaks to the Saints who were gathering, “all those who gather to the land of Zion shall be tithed of all their SURPLUS properties, and shall observe this law, or they shall not be found worthy to abide. . . .” (Ibid. Emphasis added.)

For verses 4 and 5 to be harmonious, INTEREST and SURPLUS must have common meaning.

2e. A review of pertinent dictionary definitions for INTEREST include (1) right, title, or legal SHARE in something, (2) the PROFIT in goods or money that is made on invested capital, and (3) an EXCESS or bonus beyond what is expected or due.

All three definitions of INTEREST are in harmony with the passage describing Abram: “all the riches which he possessed (legal SHARE), which God had given him more than he had need” (PROFIT, EXCESS). (Genesis 14:39 JST). Therefore, the D&C 119 expression of a tithe on INTEREST or a tithe on SURPLUS, as defined, is in harmony with what Smith meant when he wrote Genesis 14:39, supra.

3a. In the April 1974 Ensign, Bishop Victor L. Brown repeated a 1970 Statement of the First Presidency. The meaning of tithing on excess has not changed if one reads this statement in light of Smith’s two scriptural definitions, set forth in paragraphs 2b and 2d, supra. Here is an extract of Brown’s “I Have A Question”:

”My wife and I want to fully obey the Lord’s commandment to pay tithing, but we are confused as to what figure we should base our tithing on. Can you help us?

Bishop Victor L. Brown, Presiding Bishop of the Church.

Since we learn in the Book of Mormon that Abraham paid his tithing to Melchizedek, we know the law of tithing was lived in ancient times. This law was reestablished in the Church in this dispensation through a revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith at Far West, Missouri, on July 18, 1838, as recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants, section 119, verses 3-4:

“And this shall be the beginning of the tithing of my people.
“And after that, those who have been thus 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.” D&C 119:3-4.

”On March 19, 1970, the First Presidency sent the following letter to presidents of stakes and missions, bishops of wards, and presidents of branches in answer to the question,
“What is a proper tithe?”
“For your guidance in this matter, please be advised that we have uniformly replied that the simplest statement we know of is that statement of the Lord himself that the members of the Church should pay one-tenth of all their INTEREST annually, which is understood to mean income. NO ONE IS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ANY OTHER STATEMENT THAN THIS. We feel that every member of the Church should be ENTITLED TO MAKE HIS OWN DECISION as to what he thinks he owes the Lord, and to make payment accordingly.” (End of quote from the March 19, 1970 letter.)

”At the close of each year, each member of the Church has the responsibility of attending tithing settlement with his bishop. At this time, each member has the opportunity to declare whether he is a full, part, or non-tithe payer. The payment of tithing is A MATTER BETWEEN THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE LORD. The bishop is merely the Lord’s servant who receives and accounts for the contribution.
The Lord has promised that he will open the windows of heaven to those who pay their tithes and offerings. (Quotation of Malachi: 3:8-10).

“When one has been completely honest with the Lord, a feeling of peace and tranquility enters his heart and he knows that he is a full tithe payer.
Pay your tithing on the basis on which you wish to be blessed.” (End of Victor Brown Quote. Emphases added.)

If “every member of the Church should be entitled to make his own decision as to what he thinks he owes the Lord, and to make payment accordingly” (March 19, 1970 First Presidency Letter), how can every member do that if Holland, Tingey, and Hales told the faithful to pay 10 percent of their gross, or their net for that matter?

3b. The General Handbook of Instructions quotes from the March 19, 1970 letter from the First Presidency as its definition of what is tithed. Here is a portion of the General Handbook of Instructions from that section:

Definition of Tithing
The First Presidency has written: “The simplest statement we know of is the statement of the Lord himself, namely, that the members of the Church should pay ‘one-tenth of all their interest annually, which is understood to mean income. No one is justified in making any other statement than this.’ ” (First Presidency letter, 19 Mar. 1970; see also D&C 119:4).

Because the General Handbook of Instructions quotes the 1970 letter from the First Presidency, the 1970 letter remains the official written policy on tithing.

But even the First Presidency statement fails to define “INCOME”. Hence, one must look to the scriptures for a definition. They state INTEREST income (D&C 119:4), which means excess or SURPLUS income (D&C 119:5) MORE THAN [THE TITHE PAYER] HAS NEED (Genesis 14:39, JST).

4. In view of the fact that a proper tithe is based upon surplus, it may come as a surprise that the speeches of Holland, Tingey, and Hales message may have been legally correct. However, because they did not volunteer pertinent information, it could have been misunderstood.

4a. JEFFREY R. HOLLAND’S SPEECH

When Holland told his audience that tithing is 10 percent of income, he quoted from the deceased Apostle James E. Talmage.

Holland’s lengthy quotation of Talmage is so riddled with ellipses and square brackets, one wonders what Talmage actually wrote.

I checked.

Holland’s “quotation” is not what Talmage meant, particularly regarding what should be tithed.

The amount to be tithed is and remains one tenth of a person’s increase after needs are met. (Genesis 14:39, Joseph Smith Translation, D&C 119:3-5). The First Presidency letter dated March 19, 1970 states in part, ” We feel that every member of the Church should be entitled to make his own decision as to what he thinks he owes the Lord, and to make payment accordingly.” (Supra.)

Talmage’s writing supports current official policy, and the two scriptures cited above. Holland’s “quotation” of Talmage changes the meaning Talmage wrote.

Below is a full text, alternating-paragraph quotation of both Talmage and Holland.
I have highlighted differences with ALL CAPS.
(Comments are set forth in parenthesis).

(1)TALMAGE: “You have need of many things in this world-food, clothing, and shelter for your family AND YOURSELF, the common comforts of life, AND THE THINGS THAT SHALL BE CONDUCIVE TO REFINEMENT, TO DEVELOPMENT, TO RIGHTEOUS ENJOYMENT. YOU DESIRE MATERIAL POSSESSIONS TO USE FOR THE ASSISTANCE OF OTHERS AND THEREBY GAIN GREATER BLESSINGS FOR YOURSELF AND YOURS.

(1)HOLLAND: ‘You have need of many things in this world—food, clothing, and shelter for your family … , the common comforts of life. …

(COMMENT 1: Holland leaves the individual out: “YOURSELF”, and the following needs: “THE THINGS THAT SHALL BE CONDUCIVE TO REFINEMENT, TO DEVELOPMENT, TO RIGHTEOUS ENJOYMENT”. Talmage taught these are legitimate needs. But lest Holland give a hint that tithing should be calculated after needs are met, he has dropped these lines.)

(2)TALMAGE: Now, you shall have the means of acquiring these things; but remember they are mine, and I require of you the payment of a rental upon that which I give into your hands. However, your life will not be one of uniform increase IN SUBSTANCE AND POSSESSIONS; YOU WILL HAVE YOUR LOSSES, AS WELL AS YOUR GAIN; YOU WILL HAVE YOUR PERIODS OF TROUBLE AS WELL AS YOUR TIMES OF PEACE. SOME YEARS WILL BE YEARS OF PLENTY UNTO YOU, AND OTHERS WILL BE YEARS OF SCARCITY.
(2)HOLLAND: You shall have the means of acquiring these things; but remember they are mine, and I require of you the payment of a rental upon that which I give into your hands. However, your life will not be one of uniform increase …
(COMMENT 2: Holland truncates the phrase “increase in substance and possessions” probably because it fleshes out the meaning of an increase, that tithing should be paid after a calculation of “surplus properties” (D&C 119:5.) )
(3) TALMAGE: AND, NOW, instead of doing as mortal landlords do-require you to CONTRACT WITH THEM to pay in advance, whatever your fortunes or your prospects may be-you shall pay me NOT IN ADVANCE, BUT when you have received; and you shall pay me in accordance with what you receive. If it so be that in one year your income is abundant, then YOU CAN AFFORD TO PAY ME a little more; and if it be so that the next year is one of distress and your income is not what it was, then YOU SHALL PAY ME LESS; AND SHOULD IT BE THAT YOU ARE REDUCED TO THE UTMOST PENURY SO THAT YOU HAVE NOTHING COMING IN, YOU WILL PAY ME NOTHING.”
(3) HOLLAND: [so] instead of doing as mortal landlords do—requir[ing] you to … pay in advance, whatever your fortunes or … prospects may be—you shall pay me … [only] when you have received; and you shall pay me in accordance with what you receive. If it so be that in one year your income is abundant, then … [YOUR 10 PERCENT will be a] little more; and if it be so that the next year is one of distress and your income is not what it was, then … [YOUR 10 PERCENT will be] less. … [WHATEVER YOUR CIRCUMSTANCE, THE TITHE WILL BE FAIR.]’

(COMMENT 3:
FIRST, Holland deletes the phrase “not in advance” since that contradicts current declarations to “pay the Lord first” or even as Hinckley suggested to pay even in the face of disaster; the story of the woman who needed to pay her tuition, but paid tithing instead.
SECOND, Holland inserts “YOUR 10 PERCENT” where Talmage clearly did not say “ten percent”. Rather, Talmage’s statement is in harmony with the First Presidency letter dated March 19, 1970 states in part, ” We feel that every member of the Church should be entitled to make his own decision as to what he thinks he owes the Lord, and to make payment accordingly.”
THIRD, like a white rabbit from a hat, Holland pulls the following “quotation” out of thin air: “whatever your circumstance, the tithe will be fair”.
FOURTH, Holland drops the phrase, “you shall pay me nothing.” The reason is this would have destroyed the guilt-inspiring story of Mary Fielding Smith in his message. Because, to quote Talmage, she was “reduced to the utmost penury so that you have nothing coming in”.)

(4) TALMAGE: Have you ever found a landlord of earth who was willing to make that kind of a contract with you? When I consider the liberality of it all, and the consideration that my Lord has had for me, I feel in my heart that I could scarcely raise my countenance to his heaven above if I tried to defraud him out of that just rental.

(4) HOLLAND: “Have you ever found a landlord on earth who was willing to make that kind of [EQUITABLE] contract with you?” Elder Talmage asks. “When I consider the liberality of it all,” he says, “… I feel in my heart that I could scarcely raise my countenance to … Heaven … if I tried to defraud [GOD] out of that [WHICH IS RIGHTFULLY HIS].”

(COMMENT 4: Holland’s insertion of “EQUITALE”, “GOD”, and “WHICH IS RIGHTFULLY HIS” may inspire awe and guilt. It also minimizes the thought that one might have an indifferent or even unfair “landlord”.)

Summary. Talmage did not mean what Holland said when Holland “quoted” Talmage.

4b. EARL C. TINGEY’S SPPECH

Tingey showed from his first childhood journal, that he had earned $7.00 gross, and that he paid a $0.70 tithe.

But Tingey owed no taxes. Although it appeared he was paying a tithe on his gross, he was actually paying a tithe on his net since they were the same.

But Tingey was also paying a tithe on his excess beyond his needs. Tingey was a legal minor according to Mormon scripture, and his parents were obligated to meet his needs; the obligation was to his “parents for [his] maintenance until [he became] of age.” (D&C 83:4). Tingey’s talk, although misleading, was also consistent with the original meaning in Genesis 14:39 where Abram paid a tithe on “that which God had given him, more than that which he had need.”

It is remarkable that Tingey’s $0.70 from a gross of $7.00 was a tithe on his gross, his net, and his excess!

4c. ROBERT D. HALES’S SPEECH

Let us review Hales’s pertinent statements regarding tithing. They are listed as Hales 1 through Hales 7:
Hales 1: “In the Old Testament, Abraham proved his faith by paying tithes to the great high priest Melchizedek.” (See Genesis 14:20.)
Comment 1: The amount Abraham paid is not clear, and this statement oversimplifies that Abraham paid tithes of his excess. See JST Genesis 14:39)

Hales 2: Abraham’s grandson Jacob vowed to the Lord, “Of all thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee.” Genesis 28:22.
Comment 2: This verse indicates Jacob paid a tenth. But to harmonize this with Joseph Smith’s inspired translation of the Bible, since it is clear Abraham paid a tenth of his excess, Genesis 14:39 JST, what Jacob vowed to pay was individual to Jacob. If Jacob was paying what Abraham paid, it was a tenth of his excess.
Hales 3: The strict observance of the law of tithing not only qualifies us to receive the higher, saving ordinances of the temple, it allows us to receive them on behalf of our ancestors. When asked whether members of the Church could be baptized for the dead if they had not paid their tithing, President John Taylor, then of the Quorum of the Twelve, answered: “A man who has not paid his tithing is unfit to be baptized for his dead. . . . If a man has not faith enough to attend to these little things, he has not faith enough to save himself and his friends.” (History of the Church, 7:292–93.)
Comment 3: This paragraph is targeted to the youth who are being taken to the temple almost monthly nowadays.
Hales 4: The law of consecration was then withdrawn. In its place the Lord revealed the law of tithing for the whole Church. (See historical introduction to D&C 119.) On July 8, 1838, He declared:
“And this shall be the beginning of the tithing of my people.
” . . . 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.” (D&C 119:3-4).
Comment 4: This passage has been dealt with, supra. The scriptural meaning of “interest” is increase or excess or surplus. Just read the next verse, 5:
“Verily I say unto you, it shall come to pass that all those who gather unto the land of Zion shall be tithed of their surplus properties . . . ”
Could “tithed of their surplus properties” mean all of their surplus properties? Just look at what Hales does with his next statement, and then, for a surprise, read what the reference actually says.

Hales 5: The law of tithing prepares us to live the higher law of consecration—to dedicate and give all our time, talents, and resources to the work of the Lord. Until the day when we are required to live this higher law, we are commanded to live the law of the tithe, which is to freely give one-tenth of our income annually. (See Church History and Modern Revelation (third series, 1946), 120.)

Comment 5: There are two significant problems with the statement and the reference.
First, the 1970 letter of the First Presidency, as a newer pronouncement from an authoritative source, supercedes a 1946 book such as Church History and Modern Revelation.
To repeat, the 1970 First Presidency letter states:

“We feel that every member of the Church should be ENTITLED TO MAKE HIS OWN DECISION as to what he thinks he owes the Lord, and to make payment accordingly.”

Second, even the book Church History and Modern Revelation, indicates a tithing is a tenth of the surplus:

“In more recent times the Church has not called upon the members to give all their SURPLUS property to the Church, but it has been the requirement according to the covenant, that they pay the tenth.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Church History and Modern Revelation, 4 vols. [Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1946-1949], 3: 120., emphasis added.)

“[P]ay the tenth”, ibid., is clearly referring to less than “all their surplus”. Since Elder Hales’s talk does not quote from the 1946 book, rather it only lists a citation to it, it is not clear what he was referring to on page 120. No clear statement was found, “to freely give one-tenth of our income annually”. But this statement was found:

“We call it a free-will offering, and so it is, for everything in the Gospel is by free will, but nevertheless it is a law of God which to us is everlasting. (Ibid. pp. 120-121).
In Hales’s statement, his footnote follows the word “freely”. This is a well-placed footnote regarding a “free-will offering”, supra, not a definition of what is to be tithed.
Hales 6: Members who freely give a full 10 percent of their annual income receive all of the promised blessings of tithing, whether the amount is a widow’s mite or a king’s ransom.
Comment 6: This essay and even Hales’s cited reference in the book, Church History and Modern Revelation, make it clear a proper tithe is scripturally defined as a tenth of surplus. Therefore, members who freely give a tenth of their surplus will also receive all of the promised blessings of tithing.
In defense of Hales’s statement, the question must be posed, “Why pay a full 10 percent of one’s annual income if that is more than what is required?” Perhaps Hales is repeating Bishop Brown’s suggestion: “Pay your tithing on the basis on which you wish to be blessed.” (Victor Brown Quote, supra.)
Hales 7: When a friend of President George Albert Smith asked him what he thought of his friend’s personal plan to take what would have been tithing and donate his tenth in charitable donations of his own choice, President Smith’s counsel was:
“I think you are a very generous man with someone else’s property. . . .
” . . . You have told me what you have done with the Lord’s money but you have not told me that you have given anyone a penny of your own. He is the best partner you have in the world. He gives you everything you have, even the air you breathe. He has said you should take one-tenth of what comes to you and give it to the Church as directed by the Lord. You haven’t done that; you have taken your best partner’s money, and have given it away.” (Sharing the Gospel With Others, sel. Preston Nibley (1948), 46; see also 44–47.)
Comment 7: This is an interesting anecdote, but since it is not controlling authority over the scripture: ” . . . when you are in the service of your fellow beings, you are only in the service of your God”, Mosiah 2:17, the issue must be considered that one is not taking the tithing money away from God by tithing outside of church channels.
In any event, the following is attributed to Jesus of Nazareth. Regarding a man who did good works in the name of Jesus, but the man would not follow his apostles when commanded to by the Apostle John. Jesus said, “Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.” (Luke 9:49).

5. Despite the impressions Holland, Tingey, and Hales may have given,
5a. the official interpretation of tithing remains “one-tenth of all their interest annually”. “Interest” is an increased amount or “surplus” (D&C 119:4-5) of income “more than [one] has need.” (Genesis 14:39, JST.), and
5b. “every member of the Church should be entitled to make his own decision as to what he thinks he owes the Lord, and to make payment accordingly.” (On March 19, 1970 letter from the First Presidency.)

My Dad sent 7 sons on missions all on a seminary teachers salary. This is how he did it – He worked 18 hours a day for most of my childhood. He wouldn’t dream of complaining but I didn’t feel that way. 100K in missions plus %10 on the gross cost me a healthy childhood. He taught the Gospel all day, did janitorial then worked half the night in a machine shop. The widow starves while the rich go boating on lake powell. They both get into heaven. Had he not paid tithing he’d have lost his job, a job that he loved, so there really was no choice in the matter so when someone preaches to me about an “Honest” Tithe I have a few choice thoughts.