I keep reading in the posts that the church now demands tithing on gross? When did that become official.In the old handbook they were very ambiguous about it. When did they officially change it and spell it out?

They've always wanted tithes on gross.

It seems like they have always demanded tithing on gross income, but I think that came in my lifetime. Even if not, they always used to demand tithing "on one's increase," and on one's "surplus," which is NOT on gross. One's increase is what's leftover when all the bills are paid, and now they have changed that in a de facto way by merely re-phrasing what constitutes "increase." It doesn't matter. Few people pay tithing on their gross, or pay tithing consistently, or pay tithing "honestly," or pay tithing willingly, or pay it without fudging or hedging here and there. We all have agency, even if the church has retracted that statement to a large degree, so it is within one's power to decide him- or herself to pay whatever.

They are not going to keep someone who strongly believes that his net income is his surplus and who pays a full 10% of that out of the temple. They wouldn't take the chance of pissing them off and having them say, OK, if that's not good enough for you, then it's nothing. But they're also not going to say that's the litmus test for everyone and risk losing the millions they get from those who won't take that chance and pay on their gross. So "It's between you and the Lord" works great.

There is absolutely NO reason to pay a partial tithe. We were never taught that even if you can't pay a full tithe, pay what you can, or pay your widow's mite and you will still receive blessings. So if you can't get your clubhouse pass, save your money and take care of your needs.

ALL good mormons know, whether they want to openly admit it or not, that it's all about the money. We were taught that from a wee age. My little grandmother would give us a dime for doing some chore and an extra penny to pay the tithing. The point was that you always keep the mormon church's cut at the forefront of your mind.

If you satisfy the bishop, you've satisfied God. If you truly believe but are really strapped, you want to know what God's bottom line is. If you truly believe you can buy your way into heaven despite how you treated people during your life, you will pay WAY more.

If you're a social mormon who pays to keep peace, stay in the fold and attend weddings, the minimum to satisfy the bishop should be figured out. Those people know you can lie about everything else. If you are sleeping around, you can lie. If you know Rusty Nelson is a fraud, you can lie. But you gotta somehow make the records they have of your donations look credible with what they think you must earn. It's all about the money. If you've been fined millions of dollars for fraudulent business practices, it doesn't matter, as long as you give LDS, Inc. their 10% cut from the fraud. But if you're a single mother who has to make a choice as to whether to help your child with a wedding reception or pay to attend the sealing, hope it doesn't rain while you're stuck outside.

This is so true.

My TBM brother has always paid on his gross. His FIL, a former bishop, has said it is alright to tithe on the net.

Is there now a mandate? Either way it's a ripoff.

Don't believe everything you read on RFM.

I'm not aware of any change. The Mormon church leaves it open-ended.

In the D&C, the rule is tithing on net. They have taught that the standard is gross for many decades, but that was not the rule during most or all of the 19th century.

D&C says it’s on “increase”... whatever THAT means.
I’m not convinced it means net. Certainly NOT gross.

There's been a lot of research on this. I think Denver Snuffer did good work--it played a role in his excommunication--but there are others.

The D&C words are "increase" and "surplus." By the definitions of the middle 19th century, both were defined as what was left after you subtracted expenses from revenues--meaning net profit.

It makes sense if you think about it from an agricultural perspective. Farmers earn their gross, then put almost all of it into seed and other supplies. What is left is the increase, the surplus, the net income. The church could only tithe that amount since profits or "increase" or "surplus" were usually below 10% of gross revenues. Charging 10% of gross would have bankrupt almost all farmers.

There is a way to make tithing on gross work for farmers today. You establish your own corporation, have the revenues go to the corporation and not the owner, then deduct the expenses and taxes from within the corporation. None of that is personal income, so it's not subject to tithing. The corporation can then pay a salary and/or distribute profits to the owner/s anytime the owner/s want. That is pretty close to how farmers and small businesses did things in middle 19th century.

Of course, the modern corporate structure is available to non-agricultural firms as well. Rich people use LLCs and similar legal entities all the time. Mitt Romney, for instance, has his money in legally separate private equity funds but also in some LLCs. He doesn't take full distribution of those funds but rather lets his money ride in the investments. So in any given year only a fraction of the earnings are disgorged to him and other investors, and he only has to pay tithing on that. At most he is paying his net profits and, in most cases, he is paying even less than that.

So at a high level, what happened was the church shifted from net to gross when most people were transitioning to non-agricultural work, thereby increasing its income. But nowadays farmers and the super rich take advantage of corporate structures to reduce their income and ensure that they only pay a small amount of tithing. For farmers, that number would be close to the "surplus" or "increase" paid under the old net rule. For the wealthy, though, the legal structures shield far more revenue and hence pay much less than net.

ex (when I married him) told me net, so I was happy to oblige.

It is kind of like necking and petting. I was never sure what the bishop meant when he asked me about them. If I asked, they never gave an answer. When my 29-year-old roommate was engaged (she and I got married at the same time), she asked me about necking and petting as she was worried they might be doing something wrong. So I asked her. NO, they were definitely not necking and petting.

I was later told that the leaders don't tell you these things FOR SURE as then you just never know. The blind leading the blind.

As a new convert I asked my Bishop who was a very cool guy, whether it was net or gross, and he said he wasn't going to get into that debate.

So I just answered yes at the tithing conference so he could check the box. Everybody happy.

Bishops and stake presidents are instructed not to go into the definition, only to ask whether someone is a full tithe payer.

But in Sunday School, Priesthood and Relief Society meetings, Seminary and Institute classes, the rule is taught as gross. And if you openly teach that tithing is on net, the rule in the D&C, you'll get excommunicated.

So almost everyone believes the rule is gross, as the church wants.

One thing I REALLY liked about the RLDS church when my family attended there was its principle on tithe.

There they tithe on the net after the bills are paid. As in disposable income. So not really a full net or gross at all.

Basically just a tithe on disposable income.

So the Community of Christ church isn't as wealthy as TSCC. But then it doesn't try to be. It's also transparent in its finances. No secret accounting.

There was an old tale of some general authority that as a your overpaid his tithing. When asked why he said it was the tithing on the salary he wanted. Then of course the next year he makes that much.

Myself I prefer the story of Mother Sessions, one of Joseph's wives and well known and respected in the church hierarchy.

She overpaid by mistake. The bishop refused to refund her overpayment. Topd her to apply it to next years.

Being old, ornery and stubborn, she walked to salt lake city, marched to the beehive house, demanded to see Brigham.

She was let in and when she demanded her refund from Brigham he said apply it to next years.

She said no. So Brigham went to his desk and paid her, in gold.

You don't need to ask how much to tithe, use your agency and pay what is appropriate...... in other words, grow a pair.

Really. HOW MUCH DO I "OWE", vs.
HERE TAKE THIS [and you're lucky you get that $1, or whatever it is]!

M@t

As I understand it, the church used to specify the expected payments, but stopped about 30 years ago to be in compliance with IRS rules. I could be wrong. But I was told that if they specify the payment amount in any way, the payments become fees for services rather than charitable contributions, and hence cannot be deducted. So the church officially will not say how much you are expected to give.

However, we all know how Mormons work. All the leaders need to say is that X is important, and the whole flock will instantly come up with unwritten but totally non-negotiable rules spelling out precisely what the members need to do to be considered "worthy", especially "worthy" to enter the temples. Just look at: caffeine, food storage, women in baby blessing circles, and on and on. Mormons simply cannot operate without a fixed, and grueling, list of rules. If the leaders don't supply the list the members will step in and do their duty.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/02/2018 08:03PM by slskipper.

I think you are referring to the old building fund assessments.

Bishops used to tell you what your share was for construction and upkeep.

Tithing is gross! Sickening even.

Many mormons TITHE many times on the same monies.
Member #1 pays member #2 for work done: $500 - $50+.
Member #2 give tscc more of the same money, pre-tithed.
Member #2 gives his kid money for a new car.
Church gets ANOTHER $1,000 (that they've already got).
Member #1 retires, and pays tscc ANOTHER $400/ month.
Money that they had already pre-tithed [previously tithed].
Member #1 gives his child the house and later kid sells it.
Member kid gives tscc $80,000 [10% of the value], AGAIN!
Member #2 takes out a loan, and gives tscc ANOTHER $5,000.
Paying back that loan ($8,000), he gives the cult $800 more.
Member #3 looses home on fire, all worth $400,000.
The 'church' doesn't give them $40,000, or $400,000.
It says forget about what you owe, and your life and all.
Give us, er, the lard, more tithing. Settle up! Loss or not.
Member #2 wins the lottery and gives tscc $200,000, before taxes.
Member #1's kid gives 'the church' his family's land and dies.
Member #1's kid's kid pays tscc over $300,000 PLUS the property.
Member #2's parents die and leave her $240,000 and property.
She gives $25,000 the next Sunday, including $1,000 slow offer.


These are not all PROFITS, INCREASES, GAINS, SURPLUS!
But little 'ups' or downs, temporary gains, or losses.
The 'çhurch' gains. The member looses. All ways!
Members are coerced-brainwashed to believe they are ALWAYS gaining, not living, and sharing, and thinking, for themselves.

You haven't missed anything.
Mormons morming, that's all.

M@t

Remember the video where the 10 year-old mows the lawn or has a paper (can't recall which) and he proudly is paid with ten silver dollars, but then his grandpa reminds him that it's really God's money, and he only asks for 10% back.
So he gives up one of his silver dollars.

Then there's that video called 'First Things First' where two little kids pretend to be adults discussing finances and, of course, tithing comes first!

Whether official or not, Mo's are led to believe 10% comes right off the top, even if you can't pay the rent or buy groceries, because, you know.......

...God.

Well, a 10 year old doesn't have much overhead, so net would be pretty much the same as gross.