Law of Common Consent Forgotten?

[natasha]

Because the term 'interest' in scripture comes from the 1830's - if you look up that word in an 1828 Webster's dictionary, it means 'surplus advantage'. Even if you look it up in a current dictionary in 2018, you'll find that it still means 'surplus advantage' or 'benefit', not income. Tithing was first instituted by Joseph Smith at 2% (don't know if that was on gross income or discretionary), then he went to the Lord and rec'd the revelation given in D&C 119 which specifically says 10% of surplus (a standing law forever), then that morphed into Lorenzo Snow changing it to 10% of income in 1899 when the church was on the verge of bankruptcy and then that was changed back to 10% of all the excess a man owned upon joining the church and then 10% of surplus after that in the 1940's which finally ended up being changed to 10% of income when the church released their statement on tithing in 1970. I think I'll stick with what the Lord revealed to Joseph in 1838 which is D&C 119.

Nat, can you see how paying tithing on surplus is a higher law than simply handing over 10% of your income to the church?

So which of the definitions in Webster are you using regarding interest? And finally, since this thread is about common consent, I will just finish by saying that no I do not see how paying tithing on surplus is a higher law than simply handing over 10% of your income to the Church. It could simply tempt people to spend all they had first with nothing left to give.

[Col. Flagg]

Because the term 'interest' in scripture comes from the 1830's - if you look up that word in an 1828 Webster's dictionary, it means 'surplus advantage'. Even if you look it up in a current dictionary in 2018, you'll find that it still means 'surplus advantage' or 'benefit', not income. Tithing was first instituted by Joseph Smith at 2% (don't know if that was on gross income or discretionary), then he went to the Lord and rec'd the revelation given in D&C 119 which specifically says 10% of surplus (a standing law forever), then that morphed into Lorenzo Snow changing it to 10% of income in 1899 when the church was on the verge of bankruptcy and then that was changed back to 10% of all the excess a man owned upon joining the church and then 10% of surplus after that in the 1940's which finally ended up being changed to 10% of income when the church released their statement on tithing in 1970. I think I'll stick with what the Lord revealed to Joseph in 1838 which is D&C 119.

Nat, can you see how paying tithing on surplus is a higher law than simply handing over 10% of your income to the church?

So which of the definitions in Webster are you using regarding interest? And finally, since this thread is about common consent, I will just finish by saying that no I do not see how paying tithing on surplus is a higher law than simply handing over 10% of your income to the Church. It could simply tempt people to spend all they had first with nothing left to give.

If one is paying 10% of their discretionary income (surplus, interest), then obviously, that would be what is left over after your necessary living expenses are paid, right? Think about that for a moment… those who pay 10% of their surplus recognize the importance of avoiding extravagance, materialism and expensive living so that they have enough left over to give 10% of their surplus (as commanded in scripture in D&C 119) as well as being able to help the poor and needy. In essence, it basically helps you see the importance of living a modest lifestyle and avoiding extravagance so you are able to help others. Someone who pays 10% off the top of their paycheck who has their eyes set on worldly wealth may not only not have a dime left for other expenses, they wouldn’t have anything to give to the poor or needy either. Also, consider this analogy as I think this will help you grasp the concept of why the Lord instituted it as 10% of what is left over after needs are met – say you have two men, one is a family man, a father with 3 children and a wife who lives in his own home with your typical job/career. The other is a single man living in his parent’s basement and has little expenses to pay. Both men earn the same income at work. Under the current practice/policy of 10% of gross, both men would give the same amount of money to the church. Under surplus, different story – if both men earn $4,000/month but the family man has necessary living expenses totaling $3,500 while the single man has necessary living expenses totaling $500, then the family man’s tithe is $50 while the single man’s is $350. If the married man had to pay $400, he would only have $100 leftover each month for all other expenses/obligations and with which to help the poor and needy with. See how the Lord set it up. And which law is more just?

[simpleton]

All the nitpicking over what percentage of gross income , net, surplus, etc. I think shows us where we are at. To God I don't think it really matters, what matters is where our heart and our intents are. No matter what is decided, nobody can hide the intents of their heart from God. And from my understanding He wants our whole heart, not 10% of net or gross or surplus. He wants our all, our everything, He wants us to think, eat, breath, sleep, and live, Him. And He wants us to have Him as our very first priority. He doesn't need our money, He doesn't need anything from us. It is for our good that those laws were instituted. But if we really want to please him we would have the thought of " having food and raiment therefore let us be content" and act accordingly. I think that by only paying tithing He will probably just reward us likewise. What if we gave our all? ........ I know, that kind of thinking is not allowed.

[natasha]

I agree, Simpleton. Nothing I have is mine. And when you think about it, if I were to acquire anything new, i.e., car, clothes, etc., I have acquired these things with "funds" that are His anyway. Therefore, whether I pay 10% on income or whatever, I am still indebted to Him.

[skmo]

D&C 20:
65 No person is to be ordained to any office in this church, where there is a regularly organized branch of the same, without the vote of that church;

I know in wards and stakes, the proposal and sustaining vote of persons to new positions takes place prior to setting apart and ordination. Are the FP and Q12 different? If so, since when?

Shouldn't the proposal be set before the membership first before any setting apart and ordinations occur?

President Nelson wasn't ordained then, he was set apart. He'd already been ordained after common consent back in 1984 (when I was still on my mission.) The body of the church has already consented to him being a prophet, seer, and revelator. TFP and Q12 are already the ruling body of the church on the earth, they have the responsibility to decide who is the head of their own group.

[skmo]

The law of common consent has been non-existent for a long time in the church.

In your church, whatever that is, maybe. In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints it's alive and well, and it's doing just fine.

If it was in play/practice, I guarantee you we wouldn't have a multi-billion dollar mall in downtown Salt Lake City. Or plush million-dollar condos. Or hunting preserves in Nevada where rich men can pay big money to hunt big game for sport. Or 3% of the land mass in Florida.

The church, as a religious organization to bring souls to Christ and spread the word of God to the world follows God's directives to His ordained leaders, and members have a right twice a year to express their disagreement. I've seen myself that a disagreement or criticism will be dealt with to whatever degree it warrants according to the nature of the complaint. However, that doesn't mean that every crackpot who thinks it should be a carved-in-stone commandment that all men must wear white shirts and ties will get their way no matter how hard they stamp their feet and shout "Injustice! Blasphemy!"

The church financial organization, as a part of the government-recognized corporation is a business, and although it falls under the oversight of TFP and Q12 is a different part of the church organization.

[skmo]

If you make $1,000 and your necessary living expenses amount to $700, your tithing is $30, not $100.
.
.
.
Stop and think about how paying tithing on your surplus might actually be a higher law than paying on your gross income. I'll let you know if you can't see how.

We are taught that tithing is donating ten percent of our increase. Some people insist that means 10% of gross, others insist it's net, others declare it's whatever-the-heck-they-decide according to their own understanding. In order to be deemed worthy to be allowed to enter the temple and partake in our most sacred sacraments, we must answer the question “Are you a full-tithe payer?” We are taught that all have the Light of Christ within.

If a person is donating what they believe is a full tithe, isn't that their business? We've all been taught what the basic meaning is, and if you're paying 10% on what you have after paying rent, food, and utilities but God wants 10% of your net or gross, I happen to believe that the Still Small Voice will tell me.

[Thinker]

The war in heaven & on earth is essentially over free agency.

Consent is a biggie even legally. But there are ways around it as we have seen. Some are masters at manipulating this. When you step back to look at lds traditions, you can see many violations.

Eg: This woman explains how when on her mission, she was pressured to be dishonest & violate peoples’ trust by not getting consent. She regrets succumbing to the pressure. https://youtu.be/xLVucdEyuCE