(Note: This post essentially summarizes information that is much more fully covered in an excellent post on the blog PureMormonism. I highly recommend that link for a more complete review of the history of the tithe in the LDS church)

It is not uncommon for a Mormon to contemplate the question of tithing. It represents a very tangible aspect of a Mormon’s devotion and, as I have written about before, is reinforced with fear and with little accountability to the members as to how it is used.

What is tithing?

On July 8, 1838 Joseph smith received a revelation instituting the law of tithing among the saints. It was to replace the Law of Consecration which member had failed to abide. This revelation is recorded in Section 119 of the Doctrine and Covenants. The most relevant verses are:

“And this shall be the beginning of the tithing of my people. And after that, those who have thus been tithed shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever, for my holy priesthood, saith the Lord.”

(D&C 119:3-4)

It is declared that those who are subject to tithes are to pay 10% of “interest” each year – but what exactly is interest? What did that word mean to people living in Joseph Smith’s time?

What’s in a word?

One way of determining how to assess the meaning of the words of Joseph Smith’s revelations is to examine the 1828 edition of Webster’s Dictionary, which was the current english dictionary during the relevant years of Joseph’s life. For example in the 2007 issue of the Ensign, when reviewing the meaning of the word “intelligences” it is stated:

“One definition of intelligence is “a spiritual being” (from the 1828 edition of Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language, which shows how this word was used in Joseph Smith’s day).”

(“Line upon Line: Abraham 3:22–23” Ensign, Sept 2007, lds.org)

How does Websters 1828 dictionary define “interest” as it related to someones properties or income? If you examine the entry for interest, you see several definitions. What would seem to be the most relevant definition is:

“6. Any surplus advantage”

(“American Dictionary of the English Language” entry on “Interest”, Noah Webster, 1828)

However, the term “advantage” is not usual to the modern vernacular in this context and so looking up the meaning of that term provides the following helpful definitions:

“2. Benefit; gain; profit…

7. Interest; increase; overplus”

(“American Dictionary of the English Language” entry on “Advantage”, Noah Webster, 1828)

Okay, so interest is a surplus advantage and advantage is gain, profit, increase or overplus – all of these terms imply something over and above something else. There is still some ambiguity here and it would be helpful to have some more clarification

It turns out that if you look closely at the original revelation in D&C 119 itself there is a helpful bit of information in the very next verse following the prior citation:

“Verily I say unto you, it shall come to pass that all those who gather unto the land of Zion shall be tithed of their surplus properties, and shall observe this law, or they shall not be found worthy to abide among you.”

(D&C 119:5)

Okay, good this confirms the notion of tithing applying to “surplus.” What exactly did surplus mean at the time? Webster again provides clarification:

“1. Overplus; that which remains when use is satisfied; excess beyond what is prescribed or wanted. In the United States, the surplus of wheat and rye not required for consumption or exportation, is distilled.

2. In law, the residuum of an estate, after the debts and legacies are paid.”

(“American Dictionary of the English Language” entry on “Surplus”, Noah Webster, 1828)

Now we are getting to some specific information – interest or surplus increase is equivalent to an overplus or what remains when use is satisfied. It is the amount over what is prescribed or wanted that the 10% of tithing is calculated from.

Abram’s Tithe

But can we be sure this is correct? If there was some other scriptural citation about tithing it may help. It turns out that there is. Remember that Joseph Smith undertook an inspired translation of the Bible. In this translation Joseph Smith restored many of the plain and precious truths which had been removed from the scripture. Genesis Chapter 14 included some remarkable additional verse, including a description of the tithes that Abram paid to Melchizedek:

“Wherefore, Abram paid unto him tithes of all that he had, of all the riches which he possessed, which God had given him more than that which he had need.”

(JST Genesis 14:39, lds.org)

Here we see and excellent modern revelation and restoration of scripture which clarifies that tithing is to be paid from whatever is more than that which we have need. This concurs with the prior scripture and contemporary English dictionary definitions as laid out above. By examining all these aspects it is clear that tithing as originally defined in the last dispensation was to be paid on ones Net income – that is monies left over after the payment of needed expenses.

Current Policy

It is all well and good to see how this law of the tithe was introduced and examine the meanings used at the time, but as Mormon’s are fond of pointing out – modern day prophets and continuing revelation means that many aspects of the church will change over time. Could the definition of tithing have changed since it was first given. Remember that the law of tithing was given to be “a standing law unto them forever” in D&C 119. Some may think that this means that the law and definition would never change, but reasonable people might allow that the law could remain standing and simply be updated as more lines and precepts were added upon, so to speak. The current Church Handbook of Instructions states the following:

Here we see that the definition refers back to the original revelation of “one-tenth of all their interest annually” and is clarified to indicate that this means “income.” Okay. Well “income” is still somewhat ambiguous because Gross income and Net income are both forms of income. The definition listed in the handbook does not distinguish between the two. Either one would fit the definition.

Tithing Defined and Supported

Because either gross or net income fit the definition in the current handbook and the handbook definition is just a quote from the original revelation – we can safely make the conclusion that tithing is to be paid as 10% of Net income, that is 10% of the income remaining after all needed expenses are paid. That definition is supported by the words of the law of tithing as given in the original revelation in the context of early 1800’s american English and is furthermore supported by revealed scripture in the Joseph Smith translation of the bible.

One difficulty here is that there is some ambiguity as to what constitutes a needed expense. For example, how do taxes figure into all of this. In my next post I will cover this particular question and you may be surprised to see how such a thing can be determined.

Update:

At least one commenter on facebook has made the observation that it is only people who want to avoid responsibility who engage in “quibbling over words.” The claim is that people only consider this whole gross vs net issue so that they can get away with giving the least and still feel like they are living the Gospel.

Any time a law which has requirements and consequences is introduced through the medium of words, then the precise meaning of those words is very important. The law can only be as specific and binding upon the people as the precision of the language used to articulate it. President Bill Clinton articulated this point eloquently in the following phrase:

The meaning of words matter in issues of law. That is the whole justification for the legal profession. Joseph Smith himself understood this.

While imprisoned in Carthage Jail after the events surrounding the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor, Joseph petitioned Governor Ford for an interview which was granted. During the course of the interview Joseph presented a defense of the actions of the City Counsel under his direction in destroying the press. It provides a great insight into Joseph’s attitude when it came to laws:

“the course that we pursued we considered to be strictly legal; for notwithstanding the insult we were anxious to be governed strictly by law, and therefore convened the City Council; and being desirous in our deliberations to abide law, summoned legal counsel to be present on the occasion. Upon investigating the matter, we found that our City Charter gave us power to remove all nuisances; and, furthermore, upon consulting Blackstone upon what might be considered a nuisance, that distinguished lawyer, who is considered authority, I believe, in all our courts, states, among other things, that a libelous and filthy press may be considered a nuisance, and abated as such. Here, then, one of the most eminent English barristers, whose works are considered standard with us, declares that a libelous press may be considered a nuisance; and our own charter, given us by the legislature of this State, gives us the power to remove nuisances; and by ordering that press abated as a nuisance, we conceived that we were acting strictly in accordance with law. We made that order in our corporate capacity, and the City Marshal carried it out. It is possible there may have been some better way, but I must confess that I could not see it.”

(“John Taylor’s Account of Governor Ford’s and President Smith’s Interview” Scriptural Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 386-7, scriptures.byu.edu)

From this account we can see that Joseph himself played the dance of the definition of words, particularly centered around what the meaning of the word “nuisance” was and what the law empowered him to do about it.

I do not supposed that I have dis-proven the thesis that those who do such a dance are attempting to evade responsibility, but I have at least demonstrated that Mormons may follow the example of Joseph Smith in the manner of interpreting and acting upon law by looking for a definition that suits their purposes and acting there upon.

Update 2:

On the issue of tithing on the net versus gross I have had several Facebook and internet discussion with faithful Mormons and I have been astounded by how an overwhelming majority of my small sample size were not surprised at the conclusion of tithing on net income. They had all been paying on net income after taxes and in some cases after certain living expenses. I was gobsmacked. I had been taught by my parents that tithing on the gross was the only thing that counted as a legitimate tithing. I thought this is what everyone did. To pay anything less was to “rob God.” The woman which I was fortunate enough to marry had been taught the same thing I had with a similar degree of emphasis – so we built a household with this earnest conviction on gross tithing.

I had noticed that leaders never seemed to answer the question of gross versus net in a plain and straightforward manner. I now see that this has the effect of allowing a certain fraction of the membership continue to pay on the gross, despite the law originally specifying the net. If a leader is concerned with maximizing tithing receipts, it is to their advantage to keep this vague and then make insinuating statements such as “Do you want net blessings or gross blessings?” when people ask.