nothing...less money and deeper in debt...
Blessings never came unless you attribute those thousands of dollars helping to build the new mall as a blessing. Hope they upgrade their fixtures with that money.
Spouse thought that if you pay more you get more. The much wanted vacation together or have savings will have to wait until the next life, but then he will have more wives to take! ...so it never ends.

Thanks to someone on this board I read this and it pretty well sums it up.

"I find it funny that all blessings we get when paying tithing are attributed to the Lord and yet, when some kind of financial disaster comes, it is proof that you need to keep paying or even pay extra."

This boggles my mind.. I feel like we are not the only ones in mo land that is going through this. MO's are really hitting the tithing settlement rant heavier than I have ever heard it before. I will never go in again with my spouse. Stick a fork in me- I'm done.

How does the mo teach this concept of guilt so well ?

LOL I loved it. It ought be a sacrament song.

I actually OVERPAID. With a credit card advance. We were self-employed, we hadn't had figured his business expenses so we overestimated his income by tens of thousands, putting us ahead on our tithing payments WAY into the next year.

When I figured out we had overpaid, I thought those blessings ought to come pouring in. Didn't happen. We took a huge financial hit that year.

By the time the next tithing settlement came along, I was struggling with my faith. That year shook up nearly everything I believed in (including tithing). It was just a series of things that forced me to think. So much for spiritual blessings from tithing, too.

Actually, that overpayment was the LAST tithing settlement I attended. I refused to go the next year, and sent my husband alone. We left the church shortly after that.

I used to argue about it with my husband on tithing. He is a MINO but believes it 100% like a zealot (i.e. he's a hypocrite), just doesn't live it. I used to beg him to tithe and he would tell me you won't have a financial return on it. Boy have I changed. Crazy.

That's a new one on me. whatsit stand for?

Never mind. Found it in the glossary.

Yeah. I'm getting all experienced with the glossary now. How hip of me! He he

One-tenth of your INTEREST annually.

"Interest" only means "surplus" after your needs are met.


I. Introduction

Binding authority in Mormon doctrine and policy, to declare what is a proper tithe, can probably be prioritized as first: the canonized scriptures and second: signed statements of the First Presidency.

II. MORMON SCRIPTURE states plainly that tithing is to be paid on any surplus beyond a person’s needs.

Joseph Smith and Sydney Rigdon produced D&C 119:4 (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.” (Emphases added.) Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines “INTEREST” as

“5. Any surplus advantage.” (http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webster.exe?search_for_texts_web1828=interest). Webster’s defines “advantage”, in pertinent part, as “7. Interest; increase; overplus”. In the 1820′s, the word “interest” was synonymous with the phrase “surplus advantage”. A plain reading of the text leads to a harmony of meaning between the word “interest” and the phrase “surplus advantage”.

But what about scriptural harmony? Can one find the scriptural meaning of “interest” to be “surplus”?

Yes.

There are at least TWO passages of scripture that explicitly teach a proper tithe is one-tenth of surplus.
1. The FIRST passage of scripture is D&C 119:5, which is the next verse:

“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, and shall observe THIS LAW, or they shall not be found worthy to abide among you.”

Significant meanings should be observed from verse 5. The phrase “THIS LAW”, can only refer to the previous usage of the word “law” in verse 4, which states in pertinent part, “and this shall be a standing LAW”. And the phrase “THIS LAW”, namely “one-tenth of all their INTEREST annually” in verse 4, is expounded in a clarifying manner as “SURPLUS PROPERTIES” in verse 5.
2. The SECOND passage of scripture comes from the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) of the Bible. Smith and Rigdon also produced the JST. It is mostly in Rigdon’s handwriting.

“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 THAT WHICH HE HAD NEED.” JST Genesis 14:39. (Emphasis added.)

This passage of scripture from the JST is not a mere relic of early Mormonism. 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.

Scriptural harmony between D&C 119, and JST Genesis 14:39 also resides in the concept that “interest” (D&C 119:4) is expounded as “surplus properties” (D&C 119:5), or in other words, “more than that which he had need” (JST Genesis 14:39). To understand the meaning of what is to be tithed, we are fortunate to find a simple, elegant harmony in meaning, between a plain reading of the text and Mormon scripture; “interest” (v. 4) means “surplus properties” (v. 5). Mormon tithing is defined as “one-tenth of their surplus properties annually” (D&C 119:4,5), which means “more than that which he had need” (JST Genesis 14:39).

Oh fuck-this just pisses me off. All the guilt and not paying of real bills, and it was just on the surplus?

All the arguements on whether to pay on gross or net--so basically it means on our "disposable" income that we should have paid. Boy does TSCC owe me alot of money!!

nomomomo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh f***-this just pisses me off. All the guilt
> and not paying of real bills, and it was just on
> the surplus?
>
Yes, the surplus is all there ever was support for in modern scripture. Take a look at Holland's speech on tithing.

Appendix B – Jeffrey Holland’s Speech on Tithing

In the October 2001 General Conference, Apostle Jeffrey Holland delivered a speech on tithing.

Apostle James Talmage published a brochure entitled “The Lord’s Tenth” that speaks to the harmony of scripture we have discussed. Holland’s lengthy quotation of Talmage, as it appears in the November 2006 Ensign, 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 the amount to be tithed. Talmage referred to surplus. Holland referred to ten percent. Could Holland’s quotation of Talmage cause one to misunderstand Talmage?

Perhaps.

Talmage’s writing supports current official policy and the two scriptures cited above, but does Holland’s quotation of Talmage do the same?

Below is a full text, alternating-paragraph quotation of both Talmage and Holland.
I have highlighted differences with ALL CAPS, and I have set forth enumerated comments. Talmage’s text comes from “The Lord’s Tenth, Pamphlet, 1968”, as cited by Holland. Elder Talmage passed away in 1933. The year 1968 must be a re-publication date.

(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. …

(1)COMMENT: Holland leaves the individual out: “YOURSELF”, and the following needs: “THE THINGS THAT SHALL BE CONDUCIVE TO REFINEMENT, TO DEVELOPMENT, TO RIGHTEOUS ENJOYMENT”. In harmony with the above-cited scriptures, 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. In other words, it appears the Church used to semi-officially (Talmage) clarify the tithing requirement based upon a recognition that personal and other legitimate needs were not to be tithed. Semi-officially (Holland), no more.

(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 …

(2)COMMENT: Holland truncates the quotation probably because phrases like “years of plenty” “years of scarcity” flesh 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.]’

(3)COMMENT:
FIRST, Holland deletes the phrase “not in advance” since that contradicts current declarations to “pay the Lord first” or even as Gordon B. 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. (Gordon B. Hinckley, “We Walk by Faith,” Ensign, May 2002, 72)
SECOND, Holland inserts “YOUR 10 PERCENT” where Talmage clearly did not write “ten percent”. Rather, Talmage’s statement is in harmony with the First Presidency letter dated March 19, 1970 which 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, Holland pulls the following “quotation” out of thin air: “whatever your circumstance, the tithe will be fair”. The problem is his delivery at General Conference made that statement appear to be quoted from Talmage. It is not. And how can Holland’s tithe, which is a regressive tax, be fair for a destitute individual who is struggling to support themselves and their dependents?
FOURTH, Holland drops the phrase, “you shall pay me nothing.” The reason is this would have destroyed impetus of the story he told of the destitute Mary Fielding Smith. Because, to quote Talmage, she was “reduced to the utmost penury so that [she had] nothing coming in”. An anecdote like the Mary Fielding Smith story, even delivered by an apostle at General Conference, carries less authority than the scriptures cited above, and also and less authority than a signed statement of the First Presidency, as cited above.

(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].”

(4)COMMENT: Holland’s insertion of “EQUITABLE”, “GOD”, and “WHICH IS RIGHTFULLY HIS” may inspire awe and guilt. It also minimizes the thought that one might have an “indifferent” or neutral landlord (See Matthew 5:45).

Summary. Talmage meant “pay on your surplus”. Did Holland mean “pay ten percent across the board, regardless of your income”?

With this logic, I figure that even if I never gave another cent to the corporation for the rest of my life, I'm still a fulltithepayer if anyone asks. I just paid in advance on the surplus that I hopefully will have in the future.

I never figured out how TSCC would make me an appt for tithing settlement when they didnt ask me first? I rewarded them by NEVER going to these so called appts for tithing settlements!!! NOPE, I can honestly say I never went!!

I sat in the Pumpkin Patch all night Halloween and all I saw was a stupid beagle!

If you waste your time and money on myths, all you will get back is heart ache.

The only ones who were blessed by your excess payments were LDS, Inc. and their corporate board. They certainly didn't use your money to help anyone else.

people are always asking how to sue the church and be successful. If there are any lawyers on board please advise: IF a bishop says a tithe is on gross and encourages an individual to pay on gross or else lose the blessings when in fact, it states clearly that a tithe is on surplus, is this not grounds for falsely trying to obtain money from someone.
Now, one would need to be able to prove that a bishop indeed instructed in this manor, but that shouldn't be hard to do.
Just asking.