As many of you may recall, this website covered some research relating to the doctrine and practice of “Tithing” in Mormonism and the transition and changes to/of those things along the way to the mainstream, modern view. It was posted on February 10, 2014. (see below)
It linked to a post where the topic was covered in more substantive detail (see below):
Interestingly enough, KUTV published an article on February 9, 2016 in which they cover the fact that tithing has changed since its origins. (See here) In the article, they link to a guest blog post by someone who likewise covers the issue. (See below) There is also a link to an LDS.org publication on the matter that should also be considered. (see here)
One must realize that behind the use of words are the meanings of those words. The meanings of words are often taken for granted. Yet, to study a text such as D&C 119 without context – is to subject a communication that is meant to be understood to the whims of any reader and any whims they might choose to substitute in the place of context and subsequently – in the place of any form of accurate understanding.
One cannot help but find it interesting that in a church narrative that claims historical relevance to Joseph Smith’s being a vehicle for “Restoration”, that the church leaders and spokesman are often so quick to assert a point of disconnect between modern LDS and early Mormon doctrines and practices as being “clearly” legitimate. A relevant example here is the obvious claim from the LDS.org publication that “the Saints’ original understanding of tithing need not (and, in fact, does not) control how tithing functions today”.
Yet, even if belated as a post on this site – credit should be given where it is due. It is so refreshing to find a few people who even bother to look at the evidence, when so many simply presume cultural correctness.
The mainstream article and the blog post both cover some nuances associated with the terms “interest”, “increase” and “income” – making many similar or related connections as the ones made on this website previously. However, there is one big exception.
Can anyone figure out the missing piece in the analysis of KUTV or the Juvenile Instructor blog post – relative to the overall conclusion found on the postings of this site?
One highlight from the article(s) is this, (and within the quoted passage is a clue):
“Current LDS leaders say interest is typically interpreted as ‘income.’ But that’s not what it has always meant.
‘Bishop Partridge understood ‘one tenth of all their interest’ annually to mean 10 percent of what Saints would earn in interest if they invested their net worth for a year,’ Harper wrote. He cited an example from Partridge who was reportedly in the room when Smith received the revelation.
‘If a man is worth a $1000, the interest on that would be $60, and one/10. of the interest will be of course $6. thus you see the plan,’ Partridge wrote in a letter just days after the revelation was received.
According to Harper, six percent was a common interest rate at the time.”