Posted by:
Sarony
(
)
Date: November 20, 2013 08:17AM
There is a serious case that tithing is not Christian.
(1) I have been commenting on General Conference tithing talks for the last decade, beginning with a 2003 speech by Jeffrey Holland.
You can find an essay at MormonThink. Look for "Sarony."
My thesis was the leaders are not even following the Mormon definition of tithing.
Recently, an apostle delivered a speech that does not embellish the definition of tithing in a way to imply, unscripturally and improperly, the tithe is 10 percent of gross income.
In his October 2013 General Conference address, David Bednar merely recites the Mormon definition without comment:
"Section 119 simply states that all members “shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever, … saith the Lord” (verse 4)."
What Bednar does not say is "interest" in this context means surplus. Mormon tithing is only scripturally defined as one-tenth of surplus more than than that which one has need.
(2) The Apostolic-Era saints did not tithe. As evidence for this, we have Hebrews Chapter 7. The discussion is lengthy, but the bottom line is tithing is unprofitable compared to Christ's grace. Here is a summary of Hebrews 7:
Hebrews 7:1-7:10
Melchizedek is more important than Abraham.
Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek, and by inference, Moses since the Tribe of Levi was in the loins of Abraham and Moses gave the commandment ("entolin" in Greek).
Hebrews 7:11-7:15
If perfection came by the Law of Moses (Tribe of Levi), there would have been no need for a new law ("nomos" in Greek).
But there is a change in the Law because there is a change in priesthood that came from the Tribe of Judah (from whence the Lord came) and this is the last change.
Hebrews 7:16-17
Jesus is more important than Melchizedek.
Hebrews 7:18-22
The previously mentioned tithing commandment ("entolis" in Greek) is abrogated because it is ineffectual for perfection.
The law [of Moses] ("nomos" in Greek) made nothing perfect, but it provided hope for something better, which is Jesus who is a surety of a better testament.
(3) You can find essays that demonstrate "The Tithe is Illegal."
I find people try hard, but they over-do themselves when they don't rely on the Grace offered by Jesus of Nazareth. Romans Chapter 10 comments on this problem, of which I believe tithing (replacing Grace) is one manifestation.
1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. (New Testament, Romans, Chapter 10)
(4) Here is a little historical background on Joseph Smith and Sydney Rigdon and their use of tithing to be supported by their flock.
I think Smith and Rigdon wanted a living. Taken in historical context, they plied the Missouri Saints with their revelations to assure this.
The following is an excerpt of the historical background of tithing, taken from VanWaggoner's Rigdon biography: "Sydney Rigdon, A Portrait in Religious Excess" published by Signature Books of SLC, UT. pp. 230-231.
"Mormonism's theological preoccupation with economics has been evident since the earliest days of the movement. The Book of Mormon implied that the rewards for righteous living included material wealth (Alma 1:29, 31). While the Mormon work ethic, as pointed out by historian D. Michael Quinn, was "communitarian rather than individualistic, and socialistic rather than entreprenurial or capitalistic," church leaders such as Rigdon, Smith, and later Brigham Young, seldom went without.7 Rigdon and Smith, upon arriving in Caldwell County, presented their financial plight to the Far West High Council on 12 May 1838. Both leaders indicated that during the previous eight years they had spent their "time[,] tallents[,] & property, in the service of the Church, and are now reduced as it were to absolute beggery, and still were detained in service of the Church." They had now reached the point, they expressed, where either something "should be done for their support ... by the Church" or they "must do it themselves." After a lengthy discussion, during which George M. Hinkle forcefully opposed "a salaried ministry," the high council voted eleven to one to give the two men eighty acres of land each and to contract with them for their services, "not for preaching or for receiving the word of god by revelation, neither for instructing the Saints in righteousness," but for work rendered in the "[p]rinting establishment, in translating the ancient records &c, &c." After negotiations, they ultimately agreed to offer Rigdon and Smith an annual contract of $1,100 apiece, more than three times what the average worker of the day could earn.8 Ebenezer Robinson, the high council's clerk, later wrote that "when it was noised abroad that the Council had taken such a step, the members of the church, almost to a man, lifted their voices against it. The expression of disapprobation was so strong and emphatic that at the next meeting of the High Council the resolution voting them a salary, was rescinded.”
Angered by this refusal, Rigdon and Smith sought additional sources of church revenues. A revelation given to them in Kirtland on 12 January 1838, but not yet public, was dusted off and presented to the membership. In response to the question: “O Lord, show unto thy servants how much thou requirest of the properties of thy people for a tithing," the Saints were told: "I require all their surplus property to be put into the hands of the Bishop of my Church of Zion, for the building of mine house and for the laying the foundation of Zion, and for the priesthood and for the debts of the presidency of my church." 10
Ten days later another revelation explained that surplus tithing was to be "disposed of by a Council composed of the First Presidency ... and of the Bishop and his Council; and by my High Council" (D&C 120). On 26 July still further instruction declared that the "first presidency [should] keep all their properties, that they can dispose of to their advantage and Support and the remainder be put into the hands of the Bishop or Bishops agreeably to the commandments, and revelations.” ll For those unwilling to be so "tithed," the 8 July revelation threatened: "If my people observe not this law, to keep it holy, and by this law sanctify the land of Zion ... behold verily I say unto you, it shall not be a land of Zion unto you." 12
Rigdon expanded on the revelation's warning, adding that noncompliers would be "delivered over to the brother of Gideon and be sent bounding over the Prairies as the dissenters were a few days ago.” 13