Site talk:SS lessons/DC lesson 17

This page allows you to see in one place the talk pages associated with the commentary pages for the reading assignment for this Doctrine & Covenants Gospel Doctrine lesson. Click on the heading to go to a specific page. Click the edit links below to edit text on any page.

Talk:Lev 27:26-30

Talk:Isa 58:1-5

Talk:Isa 58:6-10

Talk:Isa 58:11-14

Talk:Mal 3:6-10

Talk:Mal 3:11-15

Talk:3 Ne 24:6-10

Talk:3 Ne 24:11-15

Talk:D&C 59:11-15

Talk:D&C 59:16-20

Talk:D&C 59:21-24

Talk:D&C 64:21-25

Talk:D&C 119:1-7

Tithing and consecration Very interesting, Joe. I think this is a very interesting way to get at the relationship between tithing and consecration.... --RobertC 19:19, 16 April 2007 (CEST) My name is on the history page, but my wife is the one who pointed this out to me. --Joe Spencer 22:49, 16 April 2007 (CEST) Here's how I understand the reading. First give everything you don't need. Then give an additional 10%. That's not how I read this. I read it more like.... Give everything you have that you don't need. Then as you continue to earn interest, give 10%. I would assume that there is some time again (maybe again in a year?) where you square up if it turns out that the 90% interest you earned is more than you need. I think the key here is that the beginning of tithing is of "property" -- what we would call assets -- then the "after that" tithing is of interest -- what we would call income. --151.151.73.164 17:04, 17 April 2007 (CEST) Joe, sorry that was me. I have been testing putting comments in while not logged in because I'm still testing out the new captcha system. Any thoughts on this? --Matthew Faulconer 06:59, 19 April 2007 (CEST) To be honest, I'm not sure I'm following your explanation. Let me see if I can make sense of it by writing this out. First, I give everything over that I do not need (like you say, assets). Then I go on earning my wage. As it comes in (or grows, or is harvested, or is born, etc.), I pay a tithe on it (this happens weekly or monthly or whatever). Whatever of that 90% left over I can use for whatever. Then when the year (or some other specified period of time comes to an end), I reevaluate with the bishop, and I again rid myself of everything I don't need, and the process starts all over again. Is that what you mean? If so, I think it makes sense of the verses. I'm not sure to what degree it disrupts the relationship I was seeing between consecration and tithing. That is what I've got to think about now. --Joe Spencer 15:29, 19 April 2007 (CEST) You write "I'm not sure to what degree it disrupts the relationship I was seeing between consecration and tithing. That is what I've got to think about now." Yes. that is the more important question. I think the work you are doing on D&C 85:1-5 is helpful in understand what it means to think about the law of consecration today. I think of it as a little bit like the comments made about divorce in general conference. The church isn't applying the law of divorce that Jesus speaks of in the New Testament. To me this means that living Jesus's laaw is not something which as a community we are going to hold up as a virtue. Contrast this (to use a simple example) with smoking. We would not want to in our church community sponsor a discussion about what is the best cigarette to smoke. But we could have a discussion about how to deal w/ divorce which touches on divorce for a variety of reasons that go beyond what Jesus speaks to in the New Testament. However, as a follower of Christ I make an individual commitment to follow his teachings. So as an individual I think I should be thinking about what it means to follow even this commandment which the church is not asking us to live. I think something similar is true of the law of consecration (though admittedly complicated by the relationship of this law and the ordinance of sealing that is implied in D&C 85:1-5. Back to the particulars of the text. I assumed that the text suggests that there is a day to "re-reconcile." In fact it doesn't say this. Also, clealry today when we ask people to be baptized we don't even ask them to do give their surplus to the Church. All we ask is that they live the law of tithing. Should we see this as the first step in the transition from a church which explicitly and publicly calls on its members to live the law of consecration to one that doesn't? The members are first to live the law of consecration (the beginning of the tithing) and then to give 10% of their increase (what we now know as tithing). Supporting the idea that this is a step in the transition is the phrase "this shall be a standing law unto them forever." I think some read the "this" here as applying only to this second tithing--the 10% of income. And that by saying that this is a standing law unto them forever it is suggesting that the first tithing (giving of surplus) will end. --Matthew Faulconer 17:16, 20 April 2007 (CEST) Wow. that was a rambling comment. Anyway, I am going to edit the commentary. I realize this interpretation is less interesting. Nevertheless, I think it is actually a better reading. That said, feel free to re-edit/re-revise. --Matthew Faulconer 06:32, 24 April 2007 (CEST) OK. I just rewrote. I feel like one thing that is lost is the connection to how we should understand the laws of consecration and tithing today. I now see the beginning of this section as describing a one-time event related to inheritance. But if we think of inheritance as relating to something after we die--maybe related to entering the Celestial kingdom--what should we make of the tithing which comes after that? One interesting question that was discussed and I removed is whether the law of tithing or the law of consecration is a higher law. Maybe it depends on our situation. For someone who truly has very little--just enough to get by--the law of consecration (by itself) requires nothing. The law of tithing (10%) requires that we give 10% of what we earn, even if that means we don't have enough to eat as a result! On the other hand, for someone with a lot, the law of tithing requires 10% of earnings, but the law of consecration requires that the same person to give all of their excess. --Matthew Faulconer 07:12, 24 April 2007 (CEST) Thank you for all your work here, Matthew. I like the way this has worked out. I haven't done much in response, but mostly because the jury is still very out on all of this for me. Let me spell out my confusion: On the one hand, it seems quite clear that this revelation calls for something like the law of consecration, though it calls it something very different ("the beginning of the tithing"). On the other hand, what does "tithing" mean elsewhere in the D&C? This very revelation's section heading claims that tithing meant something very different before this point, but I'm not sure where that puts us. But I'm letting that question get me too sidetracked. What really seems to be at issue here is whether and how one lives the law of consecration, and what seems most important to me of all is the fact that most active members of the Church (at least in the States) have made covenants regarding this law. And those covenants are explicitly tied to the Doctrine and Covenants. I suppose that it is for that reason that this revelation seems so important to me: what is it saying about consecration (which seems amply clear elsewhere in the D&C)? Something about the "tithing is a lower law we are living in preparation for consecration" does not settle with me, probably simply because of covenants I have made. But then how do I make sense of this revelation? Should I be looking more carefully at the date? I'm still quite unsure where to go. But again, thanks for all you've done here. I'll keep thinking. --Joe Spencer 15:42, 24 April 2007 (CEST)

Talk:D&C 120:1-1

For efficiency this page is pulled from a cached copy. The cache should update about once a day. If you'd like to see the most up to date version, refresh the cache by clicking here.