In the last year of his life the Prophet Joseph revealed to the world that “God Himself was once as we are now” and that He too “dwelt on an earth” as we do. Yet we know very little about our heavenly Father’s mortal life. All the Prophet tells us is that “he was once a man like us;” that “God the Father ... had a father;” and “that He (his father) had a father also;” that he “layed down His body and took it up again;” that he had to “learn how to be God ... the same as all Gods had done before;” that “the Father wrought precisely in the same way as His Father had done before” Him; and that he then “worked out his kingdom in fear and trembling;”
Joseph compares Jesus’ progression to that of his Father many times. When he tells us that God “dwelt on an earth” he adds this was “the same as Jesus Christ himself did;” He tells us that “Jesus layed down His life as His Father did, and took it up again.” That Jesus would only “do the things He saw His Father do” and that Jesus “treads in the tracks of His Father, and inherits what God did before.”
From these passages it has been presumed by many that the Prophet Joseph was implying that God the Father had once fulfilled a similar mission as that of Jesus. That God had been a Savior, and performed an atonement, suffering and dying for the sins of those on the mortal world on which he lived.
It is easy to see how such a conclusion could be reached. Yet almost every comparison he makes between Jesus and the Father he makes between us and God too: God dwelt on an earth the same as we do, we will take up our lives again when we are resurrected, we must do the things our Father did to become as He is, as Joseph says, “you have got to learn to be Gods yourselves ... the same as all Gods have done before you.”
There is a good reason Joseph compares Jesus to His Father in these ways: The world accepts Jesus as a divine being, yet also accepts that He lived a mortal life. Jesus is also the only earthly example of resurrection and exaltation his listeners had, and yet we have the same opportunity for exaltation that Jesus has.
This is why he uses Jesus as an example: If Jesus as a mortal could become a God, then – the Prophet reasoned – so could we. We too can grow from “grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until we attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.” After all “God was once as we are now.”
Perhaps we need to broaden the definition of what it means to be a savior. The scriptures refer to saviors on mount Zion, and the Prophet Joseph elaborated upon this idea in relation to the vicarious work we do for our kindred dead. Maybe we all must be saviors in this way to merit exaltation.
Perhaps then we may also take all the opinions in favor of God having been a Savior like Jesus as just speculation, which – if true – would show that Prophets are liable – as are we all – to theorizing on matters that don’t directly concern our salvation.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Friday, May 25, 2007
Tithing - Gross or Net, on Wage or 'Increase'?
I have often heard over the years that those who pay tithing on their net income will be blessed with ‘net’ blessings, whereas those pay on their gross income will receive their blessings in ‘gross.’ This, of course, implies that those who pay on gross will be blessed more than those who pay on the net.
Mine is a simpler view – those who are paying tithing as they understand it – will be blessed for it in time or eternity, whereas those who believe others are not entitled to as much blessings as them because they do not understand it in the same way they do will definitely be blessed less, if at all! Especially if we are giving in order to receive the blessings – God is not a vending machine!
Tithing in Biblical times seems to have been on the net amount. Income was a tangible thing – like sheep. If a man had 20 new sheep born, he would give 2 to the Levites. If he had 10 die, he would give 1 to the Levites. Otherwise if 18 sheep died and he gave 2 to the Levites – he too would die – being unable to raise any more sheep. Or if 20 died under the ‘gross’ interpretation of tithing he would have to take a second job to raise the money to buy 2 extra sheep, and he would be going directly into debt to pay tithing!
Some dispute this because of passages which say that we should give God the first fruits[1], but they may be forgetting that the government doesn't ask us for our fruits – it takes them, and it doesn’t take into consideration fruit that falls from a tree and is spoilt, or fails to grow to maturity. Using a previous analogy – if a man had all his sheep stolen – who has the sheep? who owes the tithing on them? Under the ‘gross’ interpretation – he does, under the ‘net’ the thieves do. What if one of his sheep dies? How would he tithe for the time it was alive?
Abraham only “paid tithes of all he possessed”[2] – that sounds like he paid only on the ‘net.’ But we'll come back to him later.
No–one really tithes on the full gross. Otherwise we would be tithing on our employers health & insurance contributions, on the increase in value of our house, and on social security benefits and medical insurance paid directly to doctors etc.
If paying on the gross determines blessings this would mean that the European Saints are more righteous than the American ones – because a lesser proportion of their income is ‘net’, so the proportion of income they spend on tithing would be more. Here is a simple example:
Thus an American is spending 13% of his income on tithing, whereas a European is paying 20% of their income – even though they have $2,500 less to live on! So ‘gross’ tithing accentuates the burden on those who pay more tax – which the payee has no choice over.
What if the European and American were paying tithing on Net?
They would both only be paying 10% of their income. Although it hasn't mitigated the differences in tax entirely, the European has 400 more to spend on living than he did before. Imagine if someone is paying 60% tax – a third of their net income would go on tithing if they paid on gross!
These examples may seem irrelevant to those who live in America, but even here there can be differences in tax rates for the self–employed, the married, those with children, and under different income ranges. So a person could find themselves getting a raise when their circumstances change and end up paying more tax and more tithing, and having little more than they did before.
When you tithe on ‘gross’ you pay money on wages that you may have never seen – it isn't placed in your hand to do with as you please, you cannot be accountable for it – because you have never been allowed to choose what to do with it. This raises another pertinent question – are the government really taking your wage or taxing the employer for you working there? Isn't it the governments income not ours?
Tithing is a lesser law. Some disagree with this – they point out that tithing was part of the Law of Consecration too, but tithing as applied in Consecration was very different than the way most people apply it today. Before we get on to that though we need to address another subject – what is “increase”? This is the term used in the revelation to Joseph Smith on tithing:
What is an increase? In banking it is the profit you receive in return for your investment with them. Could it possibly mean whatever we have extra – left over after the needs of life are met?
The next verse tells us that “all those who gather to the land of Zion shall be tithed of all their surplus properties.”
Whereas there may be some ambiguity surrounding the word increase, the term surplus seems pretty simple to understand. If you have 10 acres and your business only requires 1, then 9 acres are surplus to your requirements. Under consecration those extra acres may be given to someone who needs them more, but if they were sold 10% of the money (profit) would go to the Church.
Going back to the example of Abraham, the scriptures say he gave from “all the riches which he possessed, that which God had given him more than he had need”[4] So Abraham paid from that which was more than he had need – his surplus.
Imagine the European and the American again for a moment under this situation.
Supposing they each needed 5000 to live on. This would mean that the American has 650 more to live on than paying on gross, an the European has 900 more.
Now some might point out that the Church makes much less on this, but I'm not convinced that would be the case, or that if it was that it would necessarily be a negative thing.
The majority of Church members do not pay tithing. In some wards the Bishops have told me that the majority of active members don't pay tithing either. Would more pay if it was less onerous and appeared more fair? Let us suppose that 20% pay now – if that grew to 60% wouldn't that make up for much of the shortfall? Wouldn't there be more money to be contributed for other needs from free will offerings – chapel and temple building? Wouldn't there be less members on Church welfare – as the Church is indirectly helping them pay their tithing at the moment anyway? Wouldn't there be less on welfare too because other members could be more generous with their brothers and sisters? Even if all this meant a drop in tithing income wouldn't it be worth it if these were the results?
These questions are somewhat immaterial though – the Church has left it to us as individuals to define what we believe constitutes tithing. The choice is ours – 10% of our surplus, net or gross – once a week or once a year. As the First Presidency said in 1970
Back to why tithing is a lesser law than consecration ... it is inherently unfair whether paid on gross or net. A rich person can afford to lose 10% of their income far more easily than a poor person can. If someone pays 100,000 in tithing out of 1 million, they still have 900,000 to live on. But a poor person (earning 10,000) would have only 5,000–5,400 (depending on gross or net) to live on – half their income gone!
My personal view is that I promised to consecrate everything I have. I am accountable for all of it, and will be judged on all the money that comes into my hands. This is a far more sobering thought to me than what percentage goes to the Church – because that doesn't let me off the hook from seeing that the rest is spent wisely and given generously.
Other interesting tithing info –
1. Proverbs 3:9–10, Exodus 23:16, 34:22, Leviticus 2:12–14, 2 Chronicles 31:5.
2. JST Genesis 14:39.
3. D&C 119:3–4.
4. JST Genesis 14:39.
5. Leviticus 27:30–34.
6. Deuteronomy 12:6–19, 14:22–28.
See this interesting debate on gross vs net -
http://www.reformed.org/webfiles/antithesis/v1n1/ant_v1n1_issue.html
Mine is a simpler view – those who are paying tithing as they understand it – will be blessed for it in time or eternity, whereas those who believe others are not entitled to as much blessings as them because they do not understand it in the same way they do will definitely be blessed less, if at all! Especially if we are giving in order to receive the blessings – God is not a vending machine!
Tithing in Biblical times seems to have been on the net amount. Income was a tangible thing – like sheep. If a man had 20 new sheep born, he would give 2 to the Levites. If he had 10 die, he would give 1 to the Levites. Otherwise if 18 sheep died and he gave 2 to the Levites – he too would die – being unable to raise any more sheep. Or if 20 died under the ‘gross’ interpretation of tithing he would have to take a second job to raise the money to buy 2 extra sheep, and he would be going directly into debt to pay tithing!
Some dispute this because of passages which say that we should give God the first fruits[1], but they may be forgetting that the government doesn't ask us for our fruits – it takes them, and it doesn’t take into consideration fruit that falls from a tree and is spoilt, or fails to grow to maturity. Using a previous analogy – if a man had all his sheep stolen – who has the sheep? who owes the tithing on them? Under the ‘gross’ interpretation – he does, under the ‘net’ the thieves do. What if one of his sheep dies? How would he tithe for the time it was alive?
Abraham only “paid tithes of all he possessed”[2] – that sounds like he paid only on the ‘net.’ But we'll come back to him later.
No–one really tithes on the full gross. Otherwise we would be tithing on our employers health & insurance contributions, on the increase in value of our house, and on social security benefits and medical insurance paid directly to doctors etc.
If paying on the gross determines blessings this would mean that the European Saints are more righteous than the American ones – because a lesser proportion of their income is ‘net’, so the proportion of income they spend on tithing would be more. Here is a simple example:
| American | European | |
| Gross Income | 10,000 | 10,000 |
| Tax Rate | 15% | 30% |
| Net Income | 8,500 | 6000 |
| Tithing (if paid on gross) | 1,000 | 1,000 |
| Tithing % of Net Income | 13.33% | 20% |
| Remaining | 7,500 | 5,000 |
Thus an American is spending 13% of his income on tithing, whereas a European is paying 20% of their income – even though they have $2,500 less to live on! So ‘gross’ tithing accentuates the burden on those who pay more tax – which the payee has no choice over.
What if the European and American were paying tithing on Net?
| American | European | |
| Gross Income | 10,000 | 10,000 |
| Tax Rate | 15% | 30% |
| Net Income | 8,500 | 6,000 |
| Tithing (if paid on Net) | 850 | 600 |
| Tithing % of Net Income | 10% | 10% |
| Remaining | 7,650 | 5,400 |
They would both only be paying 10% of their income. Although it hasn't mitigated the differences in tax entirely, the European has 400 more to spend on living than he did before. Imagine if someone is paying 60% tax – a third of their net income would go on tithing if they paid on gross!
These examples may seem irrelevant to those who live in America, but even here there can be differences in tax rates for the self–employed, the married, those with children, and under different income ranges. So a person could find themselves getting a raise when their circumstances change and end up paying more tax and more tithing, and having little more than they did before.
When you tithe on ‘gross’ you pay money on wages that you may have never seen – it isn't placed in your hand to do with as you please, you cannot be accountable for it – because you have never been allowed to choose what to do with it. This raises another pertinent question – are the government really taking your wage or taxing the employer for you working there? Isn't it the governments income not ours?
Tithing is a lesser law. Some disagree with this – they point out that tithing was part of the Law of Consecration too, but tithing as applied in Consecration was very different than the way most people apply it today. Before we get on to that though we need to address another subject – what is “increase”? This is the term used in the revelation to Joseph Smith on tithing:
“those who have been thus tithed shall pay one–tenth of all their interest annually”[3]
What is an increase? In banking it is the profit you receive in return for your investment with them. Could it possibly mean whatever we have extra – left over after the needs of life are met?
The next verse tells us that “all those who gather to the land of Zion shall be tithed of all their surplus properties.”
Whereas there may be some ambiguity surrounding the word increase, the term surplus seems pretty simple to understand. If you have 10 acres and your business only requires 1, then 9 acres are surplus to your requirements. Under consecration those extra acres may be given to someone who needs them more, but if they were sold 10% of the money (profit) would go to the Church.
Going back to the example of Abraham, the scriptures say he gave from “all the riches which he possessed, that which God had given him more than he had need”[4] So Abraham paid from that which was more than he had need – his surplus.
Imagine the European and the American again for a moment under this situation.
| American | European | |
| Gross Income | 10,000 | 10,000 |
| Net Income | 8,500 | 6,000 |
| A. Required to Live on | 5,000 | 5,000 |
| B. Remaining Surplus | 3,500 | 1,000 |
| C. Tithing (on Surplus) | 350 | 100 |
| After Tithing (A + B - C) | 8,150 | 5,900 |
Supposing they each needed 5000 to live on. This would mean that the American has 650 more to live on than paying on gross, an the European has 900 more.
Now some might point out that the Church makes much less on this, but I'm not convinced that would be the case, or that if it was that it would necessarily be a negative thing.
The majority of Church members do not pay tithing. In some wards the Bishops have told me that the majority of active members don't pay tithing either. Would more pay if it was less onerous and appeared more fair? Let us suppose that 20% pay now – if that grew to 60% wouldn't that make up for much of the shortfall? Wouldn't there be more money to be contributed for other needs from free will offerings – chapel and temple building? Wouldn't there be less members on Church welfare – as the Church is indirectly helping them pay their tithing at the moment anyway? Wouldn't there be less on welfare too because other members could be more generous with their brothers and sisters? Even if all this meant a drop in tithing income wouldn't it be worth it if these were the results?
These questions are somewhat immaterial though – the Church has left it to us as individuals to define what we believe constitutes tithing. The choice is ours – 10% of our surplus, net or gross – once a week or once a year. As the First Presidency said in 1970
“No one is justified in making any other statement than this [that Tithing is ‘interest’]. 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. ... The payment of tithing is a matter between them and the Lord.”
Back to why tithing is a lesser law than consecration ... it is inherently unfair whether paid on gross or net. A rich person can afford to lose 10% of their income far more easily than a poor person can. If someone pays 100,000 in tithing out of 1 million, they still have 900,000 to live on. But a poor person (earning 10,000) would have only 5,000–5,400 (depending on gross or net) to live on – half their income gone!
My personal view is that I promised to consecrate everything I have. I am accountable for all of it, and will be judged on all the money that comes into my hands. This is a far more sobering thought to me than what percentage goes to the Church – because that doesn't let me off the hook from seeing that the rest is spent wisely and given generously.
Other interesting tithing info –
- In ancient times you could borrow against your tithe, for a 20 percent fee[5] – I wonder what your Bishop would think about that?
- Part of the tithes – in the form of animals could be consumed by the tither themselves after being given.[6]
1. Proverbs 3:9–10, Exodus 23:16, 34:22, Leviticus 2:12–14, 2 Chronicles 31:5.
2. JST Genesis 14:39.
3. D&C 119:3–4.
4. JST Genesis 14:39.
5. Leviticus 27:30–34.
6. Deuteronomy 12:6–19, 14:22–28.
See this interesting debate on gross vs net -
http://www.reformed.org/webfiles/antithesis/v1n1/ant_v1n1_issue.html
Why the name?
A few weeks ago I was sitting in a meeting between someone from the management of a department at B.Y.U. and someone working on contract with the LDS Church office building. The latter received a call from 'headquarters', and during the course of his call asked, "so how are things going at the great and spacious building?" (or something to that effect).
I had heard the new conference center jokingly called that occasionally, but it never occured to me that an orthodox Latter-day Saint might refer to the Church offices as that - especially to someone who worked there, and I wondered if it was a slang phrase that Church employees used amongst themselves.
Hence the title of this blog - "the great and spacious building." I hope I can raise the question: "Are we in that building looking down and pointing, or looking up and envying, or - hopefully - making our way through the mists of darkness - depite the best efforts of those looking on and mocking?"
Disclaimer -
I don't work for the Church, I am not in local leadership, but as Shakespeare said, "what is the country but the people?" So I ask, "what is the Church but the people?" I am one of those people. I am part of the Church - even if but a small patch of skin on the Church's body.
I have opinions too, I have thoughts and feelings, and if Jesus can leave the 99 sheep to go after the one, then maybe those of us who may be seen as just being on the fringes are just important to God too, even if we may be just a number to others.
I had heard the new conference center jokingly called that occasionally, but it never occured to me that an orthodox Latter-day Saint might refer to the Church offices as that - especially to someone who worked there, and I wondered if it was a slang phrase that Church employees used amongst themselves.
Hence the title of this blog - "the great and spacious building." I hope I can raise the question: "Are we in that building looking down and pointing, or looking up and envying, or - hopefully - making our way through the mists of darkness - depite the best efforts of those looking on and mocking?"
Disclaimer -
I don't work for the Church, I am not in local leadership, but as Shakespeare said, "what is the country but the people?" So I ask, "what is the Church but the people?" I am one of those people. I am part of the Church - even if but a small patch of skin on the Church's body.
I have opinions too, I have thoughts and feelings, and if Jesus can leave the 99 sheep to go after the one, then maybe those of us who may be seen as just being on the fringes are just important to God too, even if we may be just a number to others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)