Definition of Tithing in 1838 WAS "surplus" income after all

[ithink]

Post add, ithink that is very sad.

Precisely the type of member we can't afford to lose

That is very kind, but don't mourn our family of 10. We are better off now than we were before.

[ithink]

"And only then, did I find this Jesus I had been searching for my whole life"

Agree with all except the last paragraph, but respect that is your experience.
I am, sorry, DW and I are paying direct to SLC.
about $5 too, nominal.
provides the form for the bishop to have in lieu of the tithing settlement stitch up we have always refused to attend, even when full gross tithers.

When asked, we just say yes, we are.

End of story.

But you are right. Once you lose respect for them as anointed, the entire perspective changes.

I dont think there is a coming back

Right, you can skirt the issue if you wish and I respect that, that is a survival mechanism for sure, and a valid one.

I chose to hit this head on: would Christ allow "His Church" to demolish families financially? We had to answer this question ourselves. After 9 years of grief, we got our answer. After that, I gave Christ one more year to change our minds by staying neutral and doing our diligence. He didn't stop us because He can't stop anyone pursuing truth, and in the same manner the blacks got the priesthood, we got the green light to walk away and spare the children the trouble doing what they don't need to do.

[buffalo_girl]

I heard it said on impeccable authority that the Church would experience a schism prior to the Second Coming. He couldn't say on what 'fault' the schism would occur, but he repeated, "There will be a schism in the Church."

Even as a very cynical 15-year-old when I received my Patriarchal Blessing, I was uneasy about the institutional 'culture' of the Church.

Although I didn't really understand one part of that blessing as - in my young mind - it seemed that I would be respected for my 'defense of the Church'. I thought, "Right! I don't agree with this nonsense now. How will I become so docile that I would defend it for the rest of my life?"

After a few years of being totally inactive while living in the midst of the West Coast 1960's revolt against 'The Establishment', the Lord began to teach me 'right from wrong; truth from error' in ways so powerful I had no recourse but to pay attention. The more I learned, the more I knew the Gospel & LAW of Jesus Christ was True and Eternal.

When I returned to activity I continued to 'see' the nonsense and hypocrisy. Sometimes it hurt, especially for what my sons had to experience.

When I returned to read my Patriarchal Blessing those many years later, I discovered that it was NOT that I would be respected for the position and stand I would take in defense of The Church; it was for the position and stand I would take in defense of the Gospel of Jesus Christ!!!

The Lord knew my mind and heart as a 15-year-old. That Patriarch didn't know me from 'Adam's off ox'. I was already too Bohemian to be considered a 'good' Mormon girl, anyway. But...the Lord knew me then, just as He knows me now.

It matters not one whit about historical details, hidden agendas, or mixed up priorities in those who 'run things'.

STAND in Holy Places. The Lord knows you.

[AussieOi]

One day I am going to come to North Dakota and give you and your husband a big kiss.

Whatever that means.

But I'm not into hugging, that's all.

Unless its my mother. Wife. Couple of the kids.

Yeah. That's it. A group hug and a hearty handshake.

[MsEva]

I heard it said on impeccable authority that the Church would experience a schism prior to the Second Coming. He couldn't say on what 'fault' the schism would occur, but he repeated, "There will be a schism in the Church."

Even as a very cynical 15-year-old when I received my Patriarchal Blessing, I was uneasy about the institutional 'culture' of the Church.

Although I didn't really understand one part of that blessing as - in my young mind - it seemed that I would be respected for my 'defense of the Church'. I thought, "Right! I don't agree with this nonsense now. How will I become so docile that I would defend it for the rest of my life?"

After a few years of being totally inactive while living in the midst of the West Coast 1960's revolt against 'The Establishment', the Lord began to teach me 'right from wrong; truth from error' in ways so powerful I had no recourse but to pay attention. The more I learned, the more I knew the Gospel & LAW of Jesus Christ was True and Eternal.

When I returned to activity I continued to 'see' the nonsense and hypocrisy. Sometimes it hurt, especially for what my sons had to experience.

When I returned to read my Patriarchal Blessing those many years later, I discovered that it was NOT that I would be respected for the position and stand I would take in defense of The Church; it was for the position and stand I would take in defense of the Gospel of Jesus Christ!!!

The Lord knew my mind and heart as a 15-year-old. That Patriarch didn't know me from 'Adam's off ox'. I was already too Bohemian to be considered a 'good' Mormon girl, anyway. But...the Lord knew me then, just as He knows me now.

It matters not one whit about historical details, hidden agendas, or mixed up priorities in those who 'run things'.

STAND in Holy Places. The Lord knows you.

Thank you for sharing buffalo-girl! I needed to hear your story....it has helped me.

[ithink]

I heard it said on impeccable authority that the Church would experience a schism prior to the Second Coming. He couldn't say on what 'fault' the schism would occur, but he repeated, "There will be a schism in the Church."

Even as a very cynical 15-year-old when I received my Patriarchal Blessing, I was uneasy about the institutional 'culture' of the Church.

Although I didn't really understand one part of that blessing as - in my young mind - it seemed that I would be respected for my 'defense of the Church'. I thought, "Right! I don't agree with this nonsense now. How will I become so docile that I would defend it for the rest of my life?"

After a few years of being totally inactive while living in the midst of the West Coast 1960's revolt against 'The Establishment', the Lord began to teach me 'right from wrong; truth from error' in ways so powerful I had no recourse but to pay attention. The more I learned, the more I knew the Gospel & LAW of Jesus Christ was True and Eternal.

When I returned to activity I continued to 'see' the nonsense and hypocrisy. Sometimes it hurt, especially for what my sons had to experience.

When I returned to read my Patriarchal Blessing those many years later, I discovered that it was NOT that I would be respected for the position and stand I would take in defense of The Church; it was for the position and stand I would take in defense of the Gospel of Jesus Christ!!!

The Lord knew my mind and heart as a 15-year-old. That Patriarch didn't know me from 'Adam's off ox'. I was already too Bohemian to be considered a 'good' Mormon girl, anyway. But...the Lord knew me then, just as He knows me now.

It matters not one whit about historical details, hidden agendas, or mixed up priorities in those who 'run things'.

STAND in Holy Places. The Lord knows you.

I really respect your comments here. I have to say though, tongue in cheek, of what impeccable authority do you speak? @-)

And if there is a schism, which side of the schism is good, and which bad? Is it wise to make such a black and white distinction? Where does that kind of thinking usually get us? Is not your mind literally made up of grey matter? And if you have seen that the Gospel and the Church are two different things as did Ralph Poelman and those who oversaw him and made him change his talk, and one matters and one does not, then what does it matter what happens to the church or the people in it? What is the greatest commandment? What is the second? And what is hanging on that? And what happens when the law and the prophets which hang on those commandments dishonor themselves by disobeying those commandments?

[buffalo_girl]

One day I am going to come to North Dakota and give you and your husband a big kiss.

Whatever that means.

But I'm not into hugging, that's all.

Unless its my mother. Wife. Couple of the kids.

Yeah. That's it. A group hug and a hearty handshake.

I'm not into hugging, either, but I do so look to the day when we can express our relief in a group hug, a hearty handshake, and tears of joy - knowing the 'race is over' and we have each one seen it through.

Hebrews 12
1 Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,

2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith...

Thank you for sharing buffalo-girl! I needed to hear your story....it has helped me.

Thank you, for letting me know.

[buffalo_girl]

...of what impeccable authority do you speak?

Sharing messages given by Apostles at Stake Conferences is discouraged on this Forum. I understand the concern. They aren't recorded messages for the entire Church.

I will say this...my husband was NOT a member of the Church when we heard Elder N. make that statement at Stake Conference. My husband was raised Catholic - Polish Catholic. The term schism seems to get the attention of Catholics. I'm not exactly sure why, but it certainly does seem more like a Catholic 'thing' than an LDS 'thing'.

Anyway...that statement so intrigued my husband - who is usually wont to sleep ('ponder', as he calls) it during church meetings - he made a point of talking to our Ward Bishop the next Sunday. I heard my husband ask, "Did I hear Elder N. say there will be a schism in the Church?" "Yes," the bishop answered. "What did he mean? What would be the line upon which the Church would split?", asked my husband.

The bishop felt that the strong members of the Church would become stronger over time; the weak would fall away.

This event occurred some ten years or more ago. At the time, I didn't agree with our bishop's interpretation. I still don't.

I see the more aggressive members of the Church being so confident in their spiritual trajectory they overlook the Holy Spirit's influence when interacting with those members who are less aggressive and less confident.

The 'weaker' ones DO fall away, but it isn't because they are spiritually weak - necessarily. It's more that they feel uncomfortable with aggressive behavior. They might 'admire' such confidence, but they can't see how they will 'fit in'... so, they leave it to the ones who like to be up front and center.

[ithink]

...of what impeccable authority do you speak?

Sharing messages given by Apostles at Stake Conferences is discouraged on this Forum. I understand the concern. They aren't recorded messages for the entire Church.

I will say this...my husband was NOT a member of the Church when we heard Elder N. make that statement at Stake Conference. My husband was raised Catholic - Polish Catholic. The term schism seems to get the attention of Catholics. I'm not exactly sure why, but it certainly does seem more like a Catholic 'thing' than an LDS 'thing'.

Anyway...that statement so intrigued my husband - who is usually wont to sleep ('ponder', as he calls) it during church meetings - he made a point of talking to our Ward Bishop the next Sunday. I heard my husband ask, "Did I hear Elder N. say there will be a schism in the Church?" "Yes," the bishop answered. "What did he mean? What would be the line upon which the Church would split?", asked my husband.

The bishop felt that the strong members of the Church would become stronger over time; the weak would fall away.

This event occurred some ten years or more ago. At the time, I didn't agree with our bishop's interpretation. I still don't.

I see the more aggressive members of the Church being so confident in their spiritual trajectory they overlook the Holy Spirit's influence when interacting with those members who are less aggressive and less confident.

The 'weaker' ones DO fall away, but it isn't because they are spiritually weak - necessarily. It's more that they feel uncomfortable with aggressive behavior. They might 'admire' such confidence, but they can't see how they will 'fit in'... so, they leave it to the ones who like to be up front and center.

I agree with your interpretation of those events. There are quite likely many who will leave the church who are "weak" according to the interpretation given by that bishop, but that man probably equates faith with obedience, and strength with sacrament meeting attendance. Those things could be happening simultaneously, but are actually not related.

The bottom line is this, IMHO: the LDS church is clearly, for all who wish to see, the Catholic church #2. It started on that path before the "reformation" that God started had even really got started, when Joseph decided that reformation just wasn't enough and he unilaterally turned it into a "restoration". This does not mean the church is not useful to some people, because it is. But frankly, it would need to be useful to everyone to be what it says it is, and for that reason it is not, and it is not. When the church starts saying "whom say ye that I am", then I will know they have turned the corner, but I suspect that will never happen. But no matter, Christ told us his name was "I am", and the more people take that to heart and understand what He was telling us, the better, and whether that happens in or out of the church, it matters not.

There are many forces at work in this world, and for good reason the scripture says "the whole world is deceived". It really is, and it is shocking to comprehend it. I am too, but in different ways than others, I am no better than anyone else. For that reason, the hyperbole of all the institutions out to vanish with the pride of the members, which pride BTW, you seem to exhibit very little. I will take whatever light I can get from whatever sources there are, including your thoughtful words, this forum, and even "the church", but I need no badge or label of authority to justify any statement, and in fact, when one exists, it can almost always be dismissed when that label is speaking for the color of the institution, and not of their own inspiration.

[Thinker]

I've been watching this forum and thread for a long time, and after 9 months of silence, I thought I'd say this. To all of you folk who see the church as out of line with the way it administers tithing see things, you are IMHO, seeing things the way they really are. You should be commended for your integrity and also your courage to allow yourself see things that way.

Being respectful of Brian's rules, I'm not here to bash the church as being out of line, but just to warn you that if you pursue the course you are on that the church is not even adhering to it's own canon, you will eventually find yourself outside of the church because that is just the tip of the iceberg. I can tell you from my personal experience that eventually you will end up researching every topic, sweeping every corner, and turning over every stone in an attempt to find some congruity, some candor, some level of honesty and integrity in the "official narrative" to use Snuffer's phrase, but you will end up finding nothing but the opposite.

Frankly, I see the route that many are taking, which includes many on this thread and on this forum, to be a trend that will never diminish, but grow until substantial numbers, even more than ever before and more than now, start asking why nothing seems to add up. This is primarily why the church lowered the age for new missionaries, built a mall to sustain itself no matter what happens to the membership, and why it is is now going on line with missionaries and pushing heavily on foreign missions where access to the internet and access to original church documents is limited.

If you feel you are on the path to truth, and you insist on carrying on and in being true to that quest, then do so, but beware, you will end up where you expect not. Everyone needs to realize that the church is a colossal machine, a giant behemoth that will roll over and crush anyone that get's in the way. If you are a surplus only tithe payer, eventually the screws will be tightened until you cry uncle, or you leave. You cannot avoid this. You will either acquiesce, or your days as a Mormon are numbered. I know this from experience, as we first bled, then cried, then when we could not take it anymore..... we left.

Hi Ithink!
I also went through to find all of the truth I could - and found some very disturbing, but undeniable aspects about the church.
I tried posting on NOM for a while. The founder of NOM began it with the goal of finding "the middle way" - embracing the good in the church while acknowledging and maintaing boundaries with the bad. But that forum has turned way too anti-Mormon - and anti- anything but liberal extremism. It is not the middle way - but rather a knee-jerk reaction - a rebelious teenagers response to the church - trading one cult for another.

For a while, I took a break from church, but I'm back going again and I've arranged things in a way that is better for all. We changed wards and I explained to the new bishop my belief changes. He's more open minded than our previous military style one was. I feel that my children benefit from some type of religious involvement - and the one I am most comfortable with is LDS. I realize there are many cognitive distortions taught, but I try to correct them and I often remind my kids that just as people are not perfect, groups of people (like our church) are not perfect either. Most is good - but there's some bad to watch out for.

It's like the government - I may not agree with everything they say or do, but overall, I see more advantage in affiliating with them (living here) than not.

I hope the best for you and your family! :ymhug:

[buffalo_girl]

When the church starts saying "whom say ye that I am", then I will know they have turned the corner, but I suspect that will never happen. But no matter, Christ told us his name was "I am", and the more people take that to heart and understand what He was telling us, the better, and whether that happens in or out of the church, it matters not.

It seems to me that 'the church' is better than in times past about testifying of Christ's influence in the individual lives of the people. I do recall many an Easter and Christmas while living in Utah when absolutely NO mention was made of Christ. At Christmas time, it was always about Joseph Smith's birthday, December 23!

And yes, you are right about Christ's name, I AM. I believe the concept and reality of ETERNITY is contained in that name.

I need no badge or label of authority to justify any statement, and in fact, when one exists, it can almost always be dismissed when that label is speaking for the color of the institution, and not of their own inspiration.

I'm afraid I have the same response to 'assumed' Authority.

While attending BYU as an older, single mom student, a friend who had seen a few rough spots in his path toward perfection but had become fully repentant told me, "You have no respect for authority."

I was shocked and a little hurt by what I considered a rude comment seeing he really didn't know me that well.

I looked at him straight in the eyes and observed from my own experience, "I respect authority that respects me."

Although we were in the same BYU Communications program, we spent very little time together after that exchange. I suspect my attitude was just too 'radical' for him.

Somewhere in the New Testament there is a great description of how The Church is meant to function as representative of the Body of Christ. I think it's in Romans. I'll find it and pass it along.

As to the LDS Restored Church being the #2 Catholic Church...it does seem like that, doesn't it? The Book of Mormon certainly warns about what the 'Gentiles' will do to the Holy Church of God.

Mormon 8
38...why have ye polluted the holy church of God? Why are ye ashamed to take upon you the name of Christ?

[buffalo_girl]

Please read these two chapter in their entirety...

Here you go:

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/1-cor/ ... ang=eng#26" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

1 Corinthians 12
24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked:

25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.

27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/rom/12?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Romans 12
5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

[ithink]

I've been watching this forum and thread for a long time, and after 9 months of silence, I thought I'd say this. To all of you folk who see the church as out of line with the way it administers tithing see things, you are IMHO, seeing things the way they really are. You should be commended for your integrity and also your courage to allow yourself see things that way.

Being respectful of Brian's rules, I'm not here to bash the church as being out of line, but just to warn you that if you pursue the course you are on that the church is not even adhering to it's own canon, you will eventually find yourself outside of the church because that is just the tip of the iceberg. I can tell you from my personal experience that eventually you will end up researching every topic, sweeping every corner, and turning over every stone in an attempt to find some congruity, some candor, some level of honesty and integrity in the "official narrative" to use Snuffer's phrase, but you will end up finding nothing but the opposite.

Frankly, I see the route that many are taking, which includes many on this thread and on this forum, to be a trend that will never diminish, but grow until substantial numbers, even more than ever before and more than now, start asking why nothing seems to add up. This is primarily why the church lowered the age for new missionaries, built a mall to sustain itself no matter what happens to the membership, and why it is is now going on line with missionaries and pushing heavily on foreign missions where access to the internet and access to original church documents is limited.

If you feel you are on the path to truth, and you insist on carrying on and in being true to that quest, then do so, but beware, you will end up where you expect not. Everyone needs to realize that the church is a colossal machine, a giant behemoth that will roll over and crush anyone that get's in the way. If you are a surplus only tithe payer, eventually the screws will be tightened until you cry uncle, or you leave. You cannot avoid this. You will either acquiesce, or your days as a Mormon are numbered. I know this from experience, as we first bled, then cried, then when we could not take it anymore..... we left.

Hi Ithink!
I also went through to find all of the truth I could - and found some very disturbing, but undeniable aspects about the church.
I tried posting on NOM for a while. The founder of NOM began it with the goal of finding "the middle way" - embracing the good in the church while acknowledging and maintaing boundaries with the bad. But that forum has turned way too anti-Mormon - and anti- anything but liberal extremism. It is not the middle way - but rather a knee-jerk reaction - a rebelious teenagers response to the church - trading one cult for another.

For a while, I took a break from church, but I'm back going again and I've arranged things in a way that is better for all. We changed wards and I explained to the new bishop my belief changes. He's more open minded than our previous military style one was. I feel that my children benefit from some type of religious involvement - and the one I am most comfortable with is LDS. I realize there are many cognitive distortions taught, but I try to correct them and I often remind my kids that just as people are not perfect, groups of people (like our church) are not perfect either. Most is good - but there's some bad to watch out for.

It's like the government - I may not agree with everything they say or do, but overall, I see more advantage in affiliating with them (living here) than not.

I hope the best for you and your family! :ymhug:

Very cool, glad it is working for you. I can't see us ever going back though. I think I can relate to what CHH used to talk about: going to church can literally make some people sick, and relying on the auspices of bishop A or bishop B is not the way I fly, especially when the trend is to no auspices whatsoever.

[ithink]

When the church starts saying "whom say ye that I am", then I will know they have turned the corner, but I suspect that will never happen. But no matter, Christ told us his name was "I am", and the more people take that to heart and understand what He was telling us, the better, and whether that happens in or out of the church, it matters not.

It seems to me that 'the church' is better than in times past about testifying of Christ's influence in the individual lives of the people. I do recall many an Easter and Christmas while living in Utah when absolutely NO mention was made of Christ. At Christmas time, it was always about Joseph Smith's birthday, December 23!

And yes, you are right about Christ's name, I AM. I believe the concept and reality of ETERNITY is contained in that name.

I need no badge or label of authority to justify any statement, and in fact, when one exists, it can almost always be dismissed when that label is speaking for the color of the institution, and not of their own inspiration.

I'm afraid I have the same response to 'assumed' Authority.

While attending BYU as an older, single mom student, a friend who had seen a few rough spots in his path toward perfection but had become fully repentant told me, "You have no respect for authority."

I was shocked and a little hurt by what I considered a rude comment seeing he really didn't know me that well.

I looked at him straight in the eyes and observed from my own experience, "I respect authority that respects me."

Although we were in the same BYU Communications program, we spent very little time together after that exchange. I suspect my attitude was just too 'radical' for him.

Somewhere in the New Testament there is a great description of how The Church is meant to function as representative of the Body of Christ. I think it's in Romans. I'll find it and pass it along.

As to the LDS Restored Church being the #2 Catholic Church...it does seem like that, doesn't it? The Book of Mormon certainly warns about what the 'Gentiles' will do to the Holy Church of God.

Mormon 8
38...why have ye polluted the holy church of God? Why are ye ashamed to take upon you the name of Christ?

Right on.

[ithink]

Please read these two chapter in their entirety...

Here you go:

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/1-cor/ ... ang=eng#26" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

1 Corinthians 12
24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked:

25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.

27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/rom/12?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Romans 12
5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

Romans is a very interesting book indeed. Unfortunately, no church adheres to the advice of that book, also in particularl Chapter 12 of 1 Corinth. The "head" of so many churches, bar none, now thinks it has no need of a whole lot of other things Paul mentions -- except your undying devotion to the seat of the High Priest and your money to sustain it. The closest thing to this that I have found is the ministry of Andrew Farley and his "God without religion". Many do not recognize the presence of house churches (titulus) as mentioned by Paul in chapter 16. I believe that just as we home school, we may home church, and it is just as valid before God. Many will cry there is no authority in that, but if so, then there is no authority in their church either (you name the one), and every true student of LDS history must acknowledge that the apparent ordinations which are referenced continually these days and to which they point as their authority, never really happened at all. That being said, the church's baptisms are quite likely valid but no for the reasons they say they are, and furthermore there is no salvation in any baptism whatsoever although that is the lynchpin of all christian churches.

[AussieOi]

Does anyone know about this book and if is legitimate?

Extracts


(The following comes from D. Michael Quinn, "The Mormon Hierarchy--Extensions of Power," Chapter 6, "Church Finances" [Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, in association with Smith Research Associates, 1997], see pp. 198-225 and footnotes for Chapter 6, pp. 502-513); also, from Richard N. Ostling and Joan K. Ostling, "Mormon America: The Power and the Promise," Chapter 7, "Mormon, Inc." [San Francisco, California: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999], pp. 119, 127)
_____


--Mormonism's Badly-Kept Secret of a Paid Clergy: LDS Scriptural Excuses for Putting Joseph Smith and Subsequent General Authorities on the People-Provided Payroll--

"Before the Church even had a tithing requirement, it had a paid ministry. In November 1831 a revelation declared: 'He who is appointed to administer spiritual things, the same is worthy of his hire . . .' (D&C 70:12). This was the doctrinal basis for giving financial support to Joseph Smith, and later to a hierarchy of General Authorities."

("Paid Ministry and Voluntary Service," p. 204)


--But Wait There's More!: Mormon Church Justification for Pay-Outs to the First Presidency, the General Authorities and Other High-Ranking Officers--

"In May 1835 an official Church council voted that the Quorum of Twelve Apostles and First Council of Seventy 'have particularly to depend upon their ministry for their support, and that of their families; and they have a right, by virtue of their offices, to call upon the churches to assist them.' When Bishop Edward Partridge gave the first definition of tithing in December 1837, part of the tithing was for 'remunerating the officers of the Church for the time which they were necessarily employed in doing the business of the same.' Six months later the stake high council voted 'to instruct the Bishop to pay the First Presidency, J. Smith, & Sidney Rigdon, whatever sum they agree with them for.' However, there was 'such an uproar' over this decision that the First Presidency dropped its request for a fixed annual salary."

(ibid., p. 205)


--The Laying On of the Wallet: Mormon Church Patriarchs Get Cash and Donations for Giving Blessings--

"For several decades only the Patriarch had a set compensation, while other General Authorities depended on haphazard donations from the rank-and-file or ad hoc appropriations from general Church funds. In 1835 the Presiding Patriarch was authorized a salary of $10 a week, plus expenses.

"Both the Presiding Patriarch and local stake patriarchs charged a fee. In the 1840s the fee was $1 per patriarchal blessing at Nauvoo; by the end of the nineteenth century it had increased to $2 per blessing. Joseph Smith, Sr., gave patriarchal blessings without payment of a fee, but would not record them. 'Uncle' John Smith commented that he 'lived very poor ever since we left Kirtland Ohio' in January 1838 until January 1844. Then his nephew Joseph Smith ordained him a patriarch 'through which office I obtained a comfortable living.'

"Financial incentive is another explanation for the fact that individual Mormons received more than one patriarchal blessing in the 19th century, often at the invitation of the patriarch. In October 1877 John Taylor criticized the monetary motivation of some stake patriarchs. He said they were using their patriarchal office as 'a mere means of obtaining a livelihood, and to obtain more business they had been traveling from door to door and underbidding each other in the price of blessings.'

"In addition, patriarchs received fees for giving unrecorded blessings of healing to the sick. In fact, Apostle Francis M. Lyman commended Patriarch Elias Blackburn for 'doing a great deal of good among the sick, without receiving very much pay for his services.'

"Patriarchal blessing fees ended in 1902, although patriarchs were allowed to accept unsolicited donations. Not until 1943 did church authorities prohibit patriarchs from accepting gratuities for giving blessings."

(ibid.)


--Also Eating from the Tithing Table: Local Mormon Church Leaders--

"In the 19th-century American West, local officers of the LDS church obtained their support from the tithing they collected. As early as 1859 Brigham Young wondered 'whether a Stake would not be better governed when none of the officers were paid for their services.' During Young's presidency, ward bishops drew at will from the primarily non-cash tithing Mormons donated. He complained at October 1860 General Conference 'against a principle in many of the Bishops to use up all the Tithing they could for their own families.'"

(ibid., p. 206)


--Tracing the Tithing-Takers to the Tracters: Funding Full-Time Mormon Missionaries--

"Even full-time missionaries benefitted from tithing funds in the 19th century. The senior president of the First Council of Seventy commented in 1879 that the families of married missionaries should be supported from tithing funds. However, at best that practice barely kept struggling wives and children out of abject poverty while their husbands and fathers served two-year missions."

(ibid.)


--Bellying Up to the Tithing Trough: The Quorum of the Twelve Gets Its Turn, While the Local Leaders Feed Bag Gets Turned Off--
"In 1884 Church president John Taylor limited bishops to 8% of tithing they collected (now primarily cash), while stake presidents got 2% of tithing collected by all the bishops of the stake. In 1888 Wilford Woodruff established set salaries for stake presidents and provided that a stake committee would apportion 10% of collected tithing between the bishops and the stake tithing clerk. At April 1896 General Conference, the First Presidency announced the end of salaries for local officers, in response to the decision of the temple meeting 'to not pay Salaries to any one but the Twelve.'"

(ibid.)


--Tithing-Funded Salaries of Stake Presidents: Put on Hold (Temporarily)--

"Nevertheless, ending salaries to stake presidents in 1896 was temporary. For a while stake presidents and their counselors were allowed to draw 'from the tithing fund . . . no more than the limit which had been previously specified, and not to entertain the idea that a stipulated compensation attached like a salary to certain offices in the Church.' By April 1897 the First Presidency spoke about 'the subject of compensation to presiding men' in a meeting with stake presidents and other local officers. The First Presidency urged 'the brethren to give their services so far as possible to the church without remuneration.' In 1898 'the regular 10% of tithing [was] allowed Bishops and clerks for handling the same,' but the First Presidency balked at allowing even more to cover expenses for supplies.

"By 1904 set salaries were back again for stake presidents, who were allowed $300 per year. As late as 1910, local officers continued to receive 10% of locally-collected tithing 'for handling tithes.' Recently a Mormon said that his father received a cash allowance as bishop in the 1920s, which was a later period of such compensation than my own research has verified."

(ibid.)


--Raking It in for Retirement: Church Allowances Given to Stake Presidents and Bishops--

"In addition, since the 1880s stake presidents and bishops of long tenure had received retirement allowances in monthly or annual payments. In 1901 even the parsimonious Church president Lorenzo Snow said that a financially-struggling stake president 'ought to receive his remuneration after he was released as well as before.' Retirement allowances for stake presidents continued into the early 1900s."

(ibid., p. 207)


--Regular Payouts for General Authorities: Complaining Rank-and-File Church Members Told to Quit "Whining"--

". . . [F]inancial compensation for Church officers began with the General Authorities in the 1830s but did not become systematic until 1877. During these decades there was evidence of rank-and-file dissatisfaction with the Mormon hierarchy's financial privileges. In 1847 Brigham Young told a public meeting: 'Be contented with your lot and station and stop whining and babbling about the Twelve, saying that Brigham oppresses the poor and lives off their earning and that you can't see why you can't have some of his good living, and so on. Did Brigham Young ever get anything from you, did you ever help him to any of his fine living, you poor curses, or was it through Brigham's influence that thousands of the poor have been fed?' After Young and the Apostles spent the next 12 years directing the expanding settlements of the Great Basin, 'Erastus Snow spoke Concerning the feelings of many of the people against seeing the Twelve prosper in temporal things.'"

(ibid.)


--Mormon Church Leaders Eventual Cave to Protests and Lower Their Demands for Member Money: (They Resume Taking More Soon Enough)--

"Following discussion of this criticism in February 1859, the First Presidency and Apostles restrained their financial activities. For the next five years Salt Lake County's annual assessments showed a steep decline in the wealth of Brigham Young, his Counselors, and the Apostles. By contrast the assessed wealth of the Presiding Bishop and his counselors initially increased and then only gradually tapered off during the same period. The rank-and-file expected the Presiding Bishopric to have extensive financial activity. In fact, the pendulum had swung so far that in December 1865 Apostle John Taylor '[p]rophesied that the Twelve should be delivered from the bondage of poverty under which they have been weltering for years.'"

(ibid.)


--Making Out Like Bandits: Brigham and His Inner-Circle Buddies Hit the Jackpot--

"Although the rate of this financial decline had been equivalent for the First Presidency and Apostles, the burden was far less on Brigham Young and his Counselors who had massive personal wealth compared to the Apostles. In 1859 Young's own property assessments were only slightly below those of the entire Church for Salt Lake County. Young's totalled $100,000, while the Trustee-in-Trust's was $102,250. In

First Counselor Heber C. Kimball 'observed that Mormonism had made him all that he was: he was worth $20,000 now; and if he had remained in the States he would have been a poor man to this day.' Brigham Young estimated his personal wealth at about $600,000 in a legal deposition of 1875. That was three years after he paid $100,000 in 'the tithing of his own personal means.' By contrast, during Young's presidency the Twelve's average assessed wealth reached a high of $6,672 in 1874, and several apostles individually had only $500 to $2,000 in assessed wealth annually from 1860 to Young's death in August 1877."

(ibid., pp. 207-08)


--Ringing the Dinner Bell: General Conference Announcement of General Authoritiy Compensation (Overdrafts Follow)--

"At the October 1877 General Conference, the hierarchy announced a policy of 'reasonable recompense for their services' to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and to the First Presidency, when organized. In John Taylor's view, this was actually a way of stopping the previous abuses in the personal use of tithing funds. 'Some of my brethren, as I have learned since the death of President Brigham Young, did have feelings concerning his course,' Apostle George Q. Cannon wrote. 'It is felt that the funds of the Church have been used with a freedom not warranted by the authority which he held.' Of General Authorities still living, Joseph F. Smith wrote in December 1877: 'One man, for instance, who has drawn $16,000 per year from the tithing office for his support, has been cut down to 2,000 per year. Thus some of the leaks are plugged up and we hope to be able by and by to build the temple.' Smith was apparently referring to Brigham's son John W. Young, who served as his father's Counselor for 13 years (first secretly and later with public acknowledgement).

"However, Taylor's 'reasonable recompense' of 1877 did not cover the needs of the Apostles. At an Apostles' meeting on 3 May 1880, '[t]he question of over-running salaries was brought up. Several of the brethren had overdrawn their allowance . . . ' They voted to forgive the overdrafts and to increase their annual allowance. In addition, the Apostles decided to give an allowance to the Presiding Patriarch in addition to his per-blessing fee."

(ibid., p. 208)


--Setting Up a Salaried System of Siphoning: Members, and Even Apostles, Complain That It's Getting Out of Hand--

"In September 1887 this became fixed allotments, which one Apostle opposed Twelve draw a salary.'In April 1888 the First Council of Seventy also began receiving financial allowances, to which one council member replied: 'I would prefer to receive no salary.' A 'permanent' allowance to members of the First Council of Seventy was not established for another decade."

(ibid.)


--Pangs of Conscience?: Mormon Church Presidents Start Feeling Guilty About the Gluttony--

"Nevertheless, LDS presidents themselves expressed discomfort about using their allowances. When the First Presidency and Twelve discussed the salary system again in 1896, President Wilford Woodruff said that he had not drawn money from the church until after 1877. Apostle Lorenzo Snow, Woodruff's presidential successor, said that despite the allowance system, he had not drawn from Church funds for 40 years. This resistance to making personal use of Church funds reached its climax in President Heber J. Grant, who rode public street cars rather than use tithing funds to have an automobile and chauffeur for the First Presidency."

(ibid., pp. 208-09)


--Mormon General Authorities Put Aside Their Guilt: Member Money Is Kept Flowing Their Way--

"Despite discomfort over receiving tithing funds for living allowances, a salary system for LDS General Authorities continued without significant interruption from 1882 on. As indicated by Joseph F. Smith's 1877 letter and by Wilford Woodruff's diary, the Apostles received $2,000 to $2,500 annually during the first five years of the salary system. Then significant financial stratification occurred, with the senior apostle receiving $5,000 annually, Apostles of middle seniority $3,000, and junior Apostles $2,000. In September 1887 the Apostles adopted a uniform compensation, with each receiving $3,000. Although there was not yet a fixed allowance for the First Council of Seventy, in 1888 the Presiding Patriarch's 'annuity' increased from $1,000 to $1,250."

(ibid., p. 209)


--Power and Seniority Rankings: Setting of Salary Levels for Mormon Top Leadership: --

"By the turn of the 20th century, the hierarchy's allowances were stratified by ecclesiastical position and seniority. In 1890 the monthly allowances of the Quorum of the Twelve and Presiding Bishop were identical, with the counselors in the First Presidency receiving $50 more a month and the church president receiving another $100 monthly. By 1907 the monthly allowances were stratified into a six-tiered system: (1) the lowest allowance for junior members of the Seventy, (2) the next higher allowance to mid-level members of the Seventy and the Presiding Patriarch, followed by (3) the eight junior members of the Twelve, (4) the Presiding Bishopric, two senior members of the Seventy, and four senior members of the Twelve, (5) the counselors in the Presidency, and (6) the president of the church. In those 1907 allowances, $100 monthly separated the top two tiers, and only $50 monthly separated each of the lower tiers. By 1932 there were only four strata in the monthly allowance system: (1) the lowest allowance was for counselors to the Presiding Bishop and for the entire Seventy, (2) an extra $50 monthly allotment for the Presiding Bishop, the Presiding Patriarch, and all members of the Twelve, (3) an additional increase of $100 monthly for counselors in the First Presidency, (4) and a $150 monthly bonus for the Church president. David O. McKay's presidency (1951-70) adopted uniform allowances for all general authorities, regardless of quorum or seniority."

(ibid.)


--More Riches for the Rulers: Fees Charged for Divorces, Cancellations of Sealing and Setting Apart of Missionaries--

"There were also miscellaneous fees which the General Authorities collected for ecclesiastical services. Brigham Young charged men 'ten dollars for each divorce' or cancellation of sealing, which policy continued until the end of the century. In addition, until 1899 the General Authorities charged a fee for setting apart all departing missionaries."

(ibid.)


--Wanting More, More, More: Mormonism's Highest Keep Insisting on Competitive Compensation--

"Periodically the Mormon hierarchy has made a significant increase in monthly allowances to General Authorities. In 1950, for example, there was a 30% increase. Nevertheless, in view of the financial empire administered by the LDS General Authorities, their compensation from Church funds has always been paltry compared to the salaries and perks of corporate America. In 1949 First Presidency Counselor J. Reuben Clark wrote that 'the General Authorities of the Church get precious little from the tithing of the Church. They are not paid as much as a first-class, stenographic secretary of some of the men who run industry.' That disparity was probably the reason for the next year's increase in allowances to the General Authorities.

"For example, as a newly-appointed Assistant to the Twelve in 1941, Marion G. Romney found that his Church 'allowance amounted to less than half of what he was earning from his law practice when he was called as a General Authority.' Appointed an Apostle that same year, Harold B. Lee found that his financial allowance was less than the salary of some staff members at LDS headquarters. As was true in the 19th-century hierarchy, a significant drop in income and personal wealth occurred when a man accepted the calling of LDS General Authority."

(ibid., pp. 209-10)


--Big General Authority Bonuses: The Book Business

"Although not a formal salary, General Authorities can also receive significant income from the books they publish. When he published 'The Way To Perfection' in 1931, Joseph Fielding Smith specified that all its future royalties would go to the LDS Genealogical Society. However, he was not as generous with the royalties from his dozens of other books. For example, when President Smith died in July 1972, his royalties from Deseret Book Company totaled $9,636 for the previous six-month period. Presiding Bishop (and later Apostle) LeGrand Richards set a remarkable example by accepting no royalties for his 'Marvelous Work and a Wonder' which had sold 2 million copies by the time of his death in 1983. However, a president of the LDS church's publishing company has observed that very few General Authorities have declined royalties for their books. Mormons purchase books written by General Authorities primarily because of the church office the author holds, rather than for the book's content. Although many General Authorities do not write books, such royalty income is a direct consequence of being an LDS leader."

(ibid., p. 210)


--Hiding the Financial Facts: Gordon B. Hinckley Fudges on the Extent of General Authority Living Allowances--

"Speaking of LDS Church-owned businesses and stock-portfolio in 1985, First Presidency Counselor Gordon B. Hinckley said that 'the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people. However, tithing was the source of these 'living allowances' from the 1830s until the Church's corporate success in recent years.

"Moreover, President Hinckley's description of the hierarchy's income as 'very modest' depends upon one's own concept of wealth. For example, when Joseph Fielding Smith died at age 95 in 1972, he had worked nearly all his adult life at LDS headquarters, first as a paid employee in the Historian's Office and then as a General Authority with a Church living allowance. At his death, President Smith had $245,000 in bank deposits, $120,000 in cash, $120,574 in stocks/bonds, and $10,688 in uncashed checks (including Deseret Book royalties of $9,636). Even 25 years after his death, few rank-and-file Mormons have such 'modest' amounts of cash and liquid assets available to them in old age."

(ibid., pp. 210-11)


--Wiping Out Personal Debt with Mormon Church Money: Another LDS Presidential Perk--

"The LDS ministry is still a volunteer, lay ministry. In the 20th century, Church offices have become unpaid to a degree they never were in the 19th century. Of more than 160,000 ecclesiastical leaders at the beginning of 1996, fewer than 500 were authorized a living allowance from church funds. Many of these LDS officials decline to use their authorized allowances.

"However, on occasion Church presidents have personally benefitted from Church finances by simply cancelling their indebtedness to Church funds. On 23 April 1834 a revelation ended the Kirtland United Order and distributed its real estate assets among Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, Frederick G. Williams, Martin Harris, Newel K. Whitney and John Johnson. The revelation said, 'it is my will that you shall pay all your debts' (D&C 104:78). However, Joseph Smith privately required Whitney to balance 'in full without any value recd.' the $1,151.31 Whitney had loaned to the prophet, as well as $2,484.22 of the other men's debts to Whitney. Bishop Whitney had to personally absorb this loss 'because Joseph said it must be done.'

"The next two Church presidents did likewise. Three weeks before he died in August 1877, Brigham Young obtained a cancellation of his debts in Ogden, Utah, extending back to 1849. Despite the previously stated objections of his own counselor, John Taylor also persuaded the Quorum of Twelve Apostles in 1880 to allow him a $10,000 claim for sugar machinery, which claim Brigham Young had refused since 1853."

(ibid., p. 211)


--Presents to the Prominent: Floating Church Loans to Big-Name Latter-day Saints--

"By contrast, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, and Joseph F. Smith did not use their office as Church president to cancel their personal indebtedness, yet they allowed tithing funds to serve as a loan pool for prominent Mormons. In a sharply-worded report in 1911, the Church auditors noted: 'If certain members of the Church are entitled to borrow money for private ends, is this not a right of all members, for the same purpose? If this policy is admitted, would it not result in confusion, jealousy, loss and consequent wrong?' The committee observed that 'the debtors frequently look upon their obligations as being due to a rich and indulgent relative, to be paid (if at all) at their own convenience.' Among the debtors was Apostle Heber J. Grant for a 'cash loan of $34,000.' In 1913 the committee renewed the subject of Church loans to individuals, and commented that 'it is not within the purview of the Trustee-in-Trust to make advances of this kind . . . And any loans made on plain notes are legally uncollectible.'

"It is important to recognize that General Authorities borrowed from the Church's general fund because their living allowances were insufficient to meet their needs. In 1910 Apostle Anthony W. Ivins recorded that the following members of the Twelve were in debt: Francis M. Lyman, George Albert Smith, Heber J. Grant, Rudger Clawson, Hyrum M. Smith, George F. Richards and David O. McKay. Grant was the most candid about his apostolic indebtedness: 'A president of the stake begged and pleaded with me to quit paying tithing. He said I did not owe any tithing until I got out of debt. Would not that have been a fine record for a man who now stands as president of the Church, not to have paid tithing for 32 years?'"

(ibid., pp. 211-12)


--Bankruptcy: A General Authority Way to Get Around Paying Off Personal Debts--

"Many General Authorities repaid their debts after long years of effort, while others died in debt. On the other hand, some chose to declare legal bankruptcy. In 1842 Joseph Smith, his counselor Sidney Rigdon, Presiding Patriarch Hyrum Smith, and Presiding bishop-designate Vinson Knight sought relief from their indebtedness by filing for bankruptcy. Seventy's president J. Golden Kimball was the next current General Authority who filed for bankruptcy. In 1899 he had $11,126 in debts but only $2,031 in assets. By 1902 the First Presidency was unwilling for a member of the Presidency or Twelve to declare public bankruptcy, and Apostle Reed Smoot quietly persuaded the creditors of John W. Taylor to settle the Apostle's $140,000 debts at ten cents on the dollar."

(ibid., p. 212)


--Putting the Squeeze on Church Finances: General Authorities Accept Stock to Cover What They Owe--

"On 27 December 1919 recently sustained Heber J. Grant obtained the approval of his Counselors to accept $30,000 worth of his stock (at par) in the Utah-Implement Vehicle Company to cancel loans he received as an Apostle from the Trustee-in-Trust. However, accepting stock to cancel personal loans caused enormous losses to the Church during Grant's administration. In 1930 First Counselor Anthony W. Ivins computed that the Church lost $900,000 in personal loans to Presiding Bishop Charles W. Nibley. Upon his appointment as Second Counselor in the First Presidency in 1925, Nibley had used stocks and bonds to repay his indebtedness to the Church."

(ibid.)


--Mormon Church Volunteer Work: It Only Goes So Far--

Richard N. Ostling and Joan K. Ostling, in their book. "Mormon America: The Power and the Promise, " write that "in the Mormon system there is that large amount of free administrative and mundane labor from lay volunteers at the lower levels, which remains a huge-costing saving factor."

(p. 119)


Note that the Ostlings confine that observation to the unpaid Mormon worker bees at "the lower levels." No mention is made of the long and significant payment history of Church members at other levels--from bishops, stake presidents, patriarchs and missionaries up to the highest LDS leaders in the General Authority ranks.

The Ostlings do mention, however, that "Mormon Inc.'s" adminstration of member welfare services includes the operation of "[f]acilities [by] paid professionals as necessary . . . ."

(ibid., p. 127)

[SkyBird]

I think the best council for anyone in or out of the church is to be as the Lord said:

Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
(New Testament | Matthew 10:16)

I have been a member all my life and can truly say there are a lot of things I see differently... the things I see differently I keep to myself save a few. The Church today as in the past is here for the "milk" drinkers (most of us start out this way)... as a wake up to basic principles of repentance and fellowship through its ordinances. If you are looking for the "meat" I have realized it is a journey you take on your own and share it with a few... and be carful at that as I have seen best friends and families split apart over the most ridicules things.

In this world there will always be the ecclesiastical church with its "authority" to rule in mortality. And on the other hand there will always be the "church of the Lamb of God" (1 Nephi 14: 10) and its members can be from anywhere, ecclesiastical or not... who see "truth" in all things and show honor and respect to all, judging only between the fruits of the spirit and the lusts of the flesh; not doctrine's, authority, tithes and offerings etc.

For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
19 And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.
20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.(New Testament | Colossians 2:9 - 23)

[ithink]

Does anyone know about this book and if is legitimate? ....

Quinn's book is legitimate, among others he has written. His research is respected by any serious researchers, although Quinn is poorly respected by the LDS hierarchy in general for the commonly give reason he is gay. However, if you don't shoot the messenger, you will find he is accurate and as well cited as you can get, although I don't agree with everything he says, such as his failure to distinguish correctly between income and interest in that very book.

[ithink]

I think the best council for anyone in or out of the church is to be as the Lord said:

Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
(New Testament | Matthew 10:16)

I have been a member all my life and can truly say there are a lot of things I see differently... the things I see differently I keep to myself save a few. The Church today as in the past is here for the "milk" drinkers (most of us start out this way)... as a wake up to basic principles of repentance and fellowship through its ordinances. If you are looking for the "meat" I have realized it is a journey you take on your own and share it with a few... and be carful at that as I have seen best friends and families split apart over the most ridicules things.

In this world there will always be the ecclesiastical church with its "authority" to rule in mortality. And on the other hand there will always be the "church of the Lamb of God" (1 Nephi 14: 10) and its members can be from anywhere, ecclesiastical or not... who see "truth" in all things and show honor and respect to all, judging only between the fruits of the spirit and the lusts of the flesh; not doctrine's, authority, tithes and offerings etc.

For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
19 And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.
20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.(New Testament | Colossians 2:9 - 23)

I like your comments, but why the analogy using the false milk / meat paradigm? That paradigm is nearly without fail a smokescreen to spout out useful truth, while denigrating anything and anyone who dares question it.

[jbalm]

Aussie,

FYI, I read critiques of Quinn's book on both the FAIR and Maxwell Institute websites. While they take issue with several of Quinn's assertions in that book, the critiques make no mention of the chapter on church finances. I don't know if that means anything.

On a side note, some of my SLC ancestors wrote in their journals about their lack of fondness for Brigham Young. Apparently, while my ancestors were plugging holes is the soles of their shoes with folded up paper, BY's daughters were ordering new shoes from Paris. Livin' large off the tithes of the faithful, old BY was.

Maybe my distaste for the guy is genetic.

[AussieOi]

Whereas I simply learned mine

[ithink]

Aussie,

FYI, I read critiques of Quinn's book on both the FAIR and Maxwell Institute websites. While they take issue with several of Quinn's assertions in that book, the critiques make no mention of the chapter on church finances. I don't know if that means anything.

On a side note, some of my SLC ancestors wrote in their journals about their lack of fondness for Brigham Young. Apparently, while my ancestors were plugging holes is the soles of their shoes with folded up paper, BY's daughters were ordering new shoes from Paris. Livin' large off the tithes of the faithful, old BY was.

Maybe my distaste for the guy is genetic.

Quinn's books are renowned for their thorough, copious, almost superfluous citations. Here is a modified version of Quinn's summary of tithing changes, from that book. I have modified it and copied it from a book I wrote, which is not yet published:

December 1837
Presiding Bishopric
Edward Partridge, Presiding Bishop, in Missouri defined tithing as “2% of net income AFTER expenses were deducted”.

July 8, 1838
Prophet Joseph Smith
The revelation on tithing was received1, declaring tithing of new members to be “all their surplus property”, plus “one-tenth of all their interest annually” afterwards.

November 1841
Quorum of the Twelve
Interpretation of tithing as “one-tenth of all a man [possesses, and] 1/10 of increas[e]” afterwards”. Interestingly, Quinn's book incorrectly reports what Section 119 says, using “income” as the word instead of “interest”. Quinn's contradiction escaped even himself, because in the next sentence he quotes a statement of the Quorum of the Twelve, stating “the Quorum of the Twelve made the first liberalization of the 1838 tithing revelation: the initial donation was reduced .... In reality, this 1841 change would amount to a liberalization of the first point only. The fact that the Quorum used the word “increase” instead of “interest” is just the use of a synonym, unlike the use of the word “income”. 2

1908
Permission to pay tithing in “labor, personal property, livestock, and produce” is ended (Arrington, Great Basin Kingdom, 134-36, 409)

August 1844
Quorum of the Twelve
Members are required to pay “a tenth of all their property and money . . . and then let them continue to pay in a tenth of their income from that time forth”.3

January, 1845
Quorum of the Twelve
“the duty of all saints to tithe themselves one-tenth of all they possess when they enter into the new and everlasting covenant: and then one-tenth of their interest, or income, yearly afterwards.”4

January 29, 1845
Quorum of the Twelve
The Twelve voted to exempt themselves, the two general bishops Newel K. Whitney and George Miller, and the Nauvoo Temple Committee from any obligation to pay tithing. 5

1846
Apostle
“Apostle John E. Page’s enforcement of the full-tithing requirement for the rank-and-file led to his disaffection from his own quorum. Exempted from tithing himself, Page felt guilty about collecting tithing from others such as one Mormon who gave $4 which was “the tenth of all” the man and his impoverished family possessed. Upon abandoning the Quorum of the Twelve in 1846, Page complained that he “believes that many paid tithing & in consequence of [this, were in] want of money enough to procure misc. necessaries of life.” (D. Micheal Quinn's Extensions of Power)6

September 1851
President Brigham Young
Excommunication for non payment of tithing voted and accepted by a special conference.7

1854
Member
Enoch M. King, disfellowshipped “for repeatedly refusing to conform to the rules of said Church, in the law of Tithing”

1868
Apostle
Erastus Snow: Excommunicate everyone “who will not keep the word of wisdom, Pay their Tithing & donate of their substance to help bring the Poor Saints from the old country”8

April 1881
President John Taylor
Tithing required for a temple recommend9

May 1899
President Lorenzo Snow
Tithing payment upon conversion eliminated10

Early 1900
President Lorenzo Snow
Snow told the apostles that non-payment of tithing “was worse than the non-observance of the Word of Wisdom” prohibitions against tobacco and alcohol. The time had long since passed when general authorities were exempt from the obligation to pay tithing, and one apostle was shocked to learn that Apostle John W. Taylor’s “name is on the Non-Tithing List!11

April 1910
President Joseph F. Smith
Reiteration of 1881 requirement of tithing for a temple recommend12

1970
First Presidency
“Interest” redefined as “income”. 13

[ithink]

Here is one of the best reads on tithing I am aware of:

http://puremormonism.blogspot.ca/2012/1 ... thing.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[SkyBird]

I think the best council for anyone in or out of the church is to be as the Lord said:

Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
(New Testament | Matthew 10:16)

I have been a member all my life and can truly say there are a lot of things I see differently... the things I see differently I keep to myself save a few. The Church today as in the past is here for the "milk" drinkers (most of us start out this way)... as a wake up to basic principles of repentance and fellowship through its ordinances. If you are looking for the "meat" I have realized it is a journey you take on your own and share it with a few... and be carful at that as I have seen best friends and families split apart over the most ridicules things.

In this world there will always be the ecclesiastical church with its "authority" to rule in mortality. And on the other hand there will always be the "church of the Lamb of God" (1 Nephi 14: 10) and its members can be from anywhere, ecclesiastical or not... who see "truth" in all things and show honor and respect to all, judging only between the fruits of the spirit and the lusts of the flesh; not doctrine's, authority, tithes and offerings etc.

For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
19 And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.
20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.(New Testament | Colossians 2:9 - 23)

I like your comments, but why the analogy using the false milk / meat paradigm? That paradigm is nearly without fail a smokescreen to spout out useful truth, while denigrating anything and anyone who dares question it.

I was alluding to the fact that "milk comes before meat in the Church." All humanity starts out with "milk" which is the simplest form of nutrition to digest and so it is with spiritual things... we must sup upon the "milk" until we are rooted and grounded in it and then we might be ready for the "meat" or "mysteries of the gospel."

AND I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 3:1 - 4)

[ithink]

I was alluding to the fact that "milk comes before meat in the Church." All humanity starts out with "milk" which is the simplest form of nutrition to digest and so it is with spiritual things... we must sup upon the "milk" until we are rooted and grounded in it and then we might be ready for the "meat" or "mysteries of the gospel."

AND I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 3:1 - 4)

And Paul follows with "1 Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings, 2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby.". Paul does not say "advanced history" (ie. the real history) is meat, while the fabricated history and the official narrative is the milk. He says hypocrisy is milk. Guile is milk. Malice, is milk. When men love one another, they are in the meat. Meat has nothing to do with hiding history, doctoring doctrine, changing canon, or turning the pulpit into a bully pulpit for money, but that is what milk before meat has come to mean.

Milk: "I am a Mormon".
Meat: "I follow Christ".

MIlk: "I pay 10% tithing to the church, we have a nice big mall"
Meat: "I do not suffer the poor to pass me by, and I notice them not"

Milk: "I sustain Monson as prophet, seer, and revelator"
Meat: "I Am", because Christ said so to take His name upon me.

The only mystery to me is how so many fall for the milk / meat paradigm, which is in and of itself a milky doctrine designed to forever keep everyone on the teat of whomever is promulgating it.