NOM

Yesterday I had a talk with a sister I have known for some time.
Her husband quit Church cold-turkey 2 year back. And it hurt her, but she joined him being inactive.

So we got to talk online after she posted me a nice note: Have I mentioned lately that I love you?

I was puzzled, but then she said: Raunchy pics only go to my hubby.
Thanks for the fire-support she said, because we sometimes thinkwe are crazy, but in reality the church is.
The offending post was about the GA salaries, many members were angry at her.

So about influence:

Rock Waterman wrote about tithing, the infamous post which ostensibly got him exed.
So I posted it in my FB-feed shortly after it was released.

http://puremormonism.blogspot.nl/2012/1 ... thing.html

She read it, her husband read it, and he started to dig, and quit Church 2 months later.
They had never ever heard of Rock Waterman before.

Then she showed her dad, a highroller financially. Who stopped paying.
Then her mom asked, Bob, why did we not pay tithing?
Her mom read Rock´s piece, and asked to be released as Stake RSP the next weekend.

A mutual friend, the Stake YMP read it, and stopped paying on gross, but now pays on surplus.
So do his 2 brothers and their wives nowadays.

The Facilitiesmanager and his wife are avid Rock Waterman students after this lady told her friend about Polygamy, a painful part of the Faciliy-Managers life. He´s born in a Dutch Polygamist mormon household.
He declined to become a bishop 2 weeks ago I heard, citing Rock Waterman being an inspiration to the SP.
And this is just the tip of the Iceberg.....

Fellow NOM-ies, our influence can range much further than we think !!!

After my friend had finished mentioning all those people I know who have been influenced because I put a pice of Rock online on my FB-feed......
I was astounded, mant TBM´s on the outside are turning NOM inside. Or at least are rethinking their relationship with the church.

She said: You gave us freedom, and so much more, you pointed the way. They now have a car, their kids finally can have swimminglessons. And so much more. Same for our Mutual friend who was struggling with his mortgage, not anymore now.

And all of it started with me sharing Rock´s piece.
You can never know who gets changed because of things you do.
I feel humbled and grateful I have been able to help so many people.
All I did, and wanted was vent on FB.

Wow - the stone rolls forth!

fh451

Every church needs money to operate, but few churches get to be a Fortune 500 company with the money they take in and invest in businesses, property, bonds and stock.

This is an amazing example of the way others can be moved to examine things more closely. Good job, Elder Melingkie! You have more than earned your Red Chair.

Every NOM a missionary.

Melinkie,

Rock Waterman is wrong. Of course, the LDS church's interpretation of Section 119 is even *more* wrong. A literal reading of section 119 requires tithing on the "increase", not on the "surplus".

And how is increase calculated? Ask any accountant-- an increase in net financial worth is easy to calculate. It first requires a "net financial worth" calculation. Your "net financial worth" is (generally) the market value of your assets, plus the value of your cash and cash equivalents.

So, calculate your "net worth" at the beginning of the year. Then calculate it again at the end of the year. The difference is your increase (or decrease, if you went behind financially). D&C 119 says you pay tithing on the increase in your net financial worth. You pay 1/10 of your increase.

It's really simple. And any accountant can teach how to do it. All of Rock Waterman's convoluted explanations just serve to confuse.

*****************
The next question is: what is "surplus"?

Rock made a huge attempt at defining it. But again he is wrong. And again, the real answer is really, really simple. But it is also inextricably woven into certain other 19th Century ideas of the time.

Your "surplus" would be your cash. Anything other than cash is being used, and is therefore not surplus. Your cash was to be deposited into the Kirtland Bank, under an account in your name (D&C 42:32 "every man shall be made ... a steward over his own property..."-- this is how you know the account was still going to be in your name). This was how the bank was going to be financed.

Properly managed, the funds deposited into the bank would then, as occasion required, be used to fund all of the other needed activities.

****************
It is really, really simple to explain, to understand, and to implement. And Rock Waterman is really, really wrong in his convoluted explanations of Section 119. But the church is even more wrong in their interpretations of it.

Thanks for your input. Rock sometimes is rather convoluted, and I agree.
I always explain it to people in farmers terms.
A farmer has assets like his house etc. Don't count this.
He has 900 cows and 100 bulls.
During a year he gets 500 calves.
His increase is 500, 10% of that is 50 calves.
He butchers those 50 and sells the meat, hands it to the bishop.

Normal people (non-farmers) have a job or other income, so they have an income, and expenses.
You pay your expenses from the income
Say 2000 dollars income and 1500 dollars you MUST pay in maintenance
500 remains in disposable income, 10% of that is 50 dollars.

JustCurious wrote: ↑Fri Mar 17, 2017 1:10 pm Melinkie,

Rock Waterman is wrong. Of course, the LDS church's interpretation of Section 119 is even *more* wrong. A literal reading of section 119 requires tithing on the "increase", not on the "surplus".

And how is increase calculated? Ask any accountant-- an increase in net financial worth is easy to calculate. It first requires a "net financial worth" calculation. Your "net financial worth" is (generally) the market value of your assets, plus the value of your cash and cash equivalents.

So, calculate your "net worth" at the beginning of the year. Then calculate it again at the end of the year. The difference is your increase (or decrease, if you went behind financially). D&C 119 says you pay tithing on the increase in your net financial worth. You pay 1/10 of your increase.

It's really simple. And any accountant can teach how to do it. All of Rock Waterman's convoluted explanations just serve to confuse.

*****************
The next question is: what is "surplus"?

Rock made a huge attempt at defining it. But again he is wrong. And again, the real answer is really, really simple. But it is also inextricably woven into certain other 19th Century ideas of the time.

Your "surplus" would be your cash. Anything other than cash is being used, and is therefore not surplus. Your cash was to be deposited into the Kirtland Bank, under an account in your name (D&C 42:32 "every man shall be made ... a steward over his own property..."-- this is how you know the account was still going to be in your name). This was how the bank was going to be financed.

Properly managed, the funds deposited into the bank would then, as occasion required, be used to fund all of the other needed activities.

****************
It is really, really simple to explain, to understand, and to implement. And Rock Waterman is really, really wrong in his convoluted explanations of Section 119. But the church is even more wrong in their interpretations of it.

Except you're also wrong. We now have that pesky letter from Bishop Partridge that explained that increase was the annual interest from net worth .

http://kutv.com/news/local/new-historic ... ds-tithing

"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.

We also have that old testament re-translation from Smith himself of Genesis 14

39 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..

But ultimately none of this matters so pay whatever you feel good about.

Check the dictionary definition of "interest", as can be found in a standard dictionary of the era.

Also, check the foreign language editions of the D&C. Specifically the Swedish version (and probably others). Look at the definition of the foreign words used.

It's increase. So, "interest" is the increase from net worth. Or, as you say Partridge said, "the annual interest from net worth".

It's exactly as I said it.

JustCurious wrote: ↑Fri Mar 17, 2017 1:32 pm Check the dictionary definition of "interest", as can be found in a standard dictionary of the era.

Also, check the foreign language editions of the D&C. Specifically the Swedish version (and probably others). Look at the definition of the foreign words used.

It's increase. So, "interest" is the increase from net worth. Or, as you say Partridge said, "the annual interest from net worth".

It's exactly as I said it.

Paying 10% on an annual interest rate of 6% of your net worth is much different than paying 10% on annual income. If that were the true interpretation today, some people would be rejoicing, and others mourning. But it's like arguing over the rules of Tolkien middle earth, so who cares.

Meilingkie wrote: ↑Fri Mar 17, 2017 1:17 pm Thanks for your input. Rock sometimes is rather convoluted, and I agree.
I always explain it to people in farmers terms.
A farmer has assets like his house etc. Don't count this.
He has 900 cows and 100 bulls.
During a year he gets 500 calves.
His increase is 500, 10% of that is 50 calves.
He butchers those 50 and sells the meat, hands it to the bishop.

Normal people (non-farmers) have a job or other income, so they have an income, and expenses.
You pay your expenses from the income
Say 2000 dollars income and 1500 dollars you MUST pay in maintenance
500 remains in disposable income, 10% of that is 50 dollars.

If an increase in inventory results in an overall increase in net worth, tithing would still be paid on that increase.

If the Kirtland bank had to make a "loan" to the individual to cover that tithing, it was planned that would be possible.

Remember also, that "all of the incomings... and all of the outgoings... were to be in the name of the Lord" (D&C 109 17:18). This would require everyone to use the Kirtland bank *exclusively* for all of their stewardship financial needs of all kinds. All deposits, and all withdrawals, were to go through the Kirtland bank.

As a mental experiment, throw out *everything* that has ever been written about this topic, other than the D&C itself. Everything.

Now, use the D&C, and *only* the D&C, for any needed clarifications (but use dictionaries of the era to define the words used in the D&C).

A literal reading of what is actually written in D&C 119 says what I indicated-- Partridge's letter not-withstanding.

And it's really simple.

JustCurious wrote: ↑Fri Mar 17, 2017 1:43 pm As a mental experiment, throw out *everything* that has ever been written about this topic, other than the D&C itself. Everything.

Now, use the D&C, and *only* the D&C, for any needed clarifications (but use dictionaries of the era to define the words used in the D&C).

A literal reading of what is actually written in D&C 119 says what I indicated-- Partridge's letter not-withstanding.

And it's really simple.

I will concede that, absolutely. However if we are using 19th century supporting contextual information, I will give more credence to the man charged with implementing the policy and collecting said tithes, 2 days after the revelation was given than our attempts today at interpretation based on dictionary entires of the time. It's a human boots on the ground factor. My apologies if my statement of "you're wrong also" came across as harsh or rude. Ultimately this whole financial charade is a constantly evolving chameleon of leader interpretation for a given time period.

As Rock was unfortunately exxed. We might get more traction with our active members using Bill Reel's similar explanation as a post to our friends

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/ ... o-tithing/

However, I'm pretty sure Bill doesn't refer to the Lorenzo Snow St George video propaganda - which had me Reeling for days once I read it.

Anyway I'm just an empty vessel right now as I do not want to rock the boat too much at home.


I also apologise for the awful puns.

RJ

Meilingkie

How have things been for you since the podcast - much support or disapproval out-with NOM?

redjay wrote: ↑Fri Mar 17, 2017 2:58 pm As Rock was unfortunately exxed. We might get more traction with our active members using Bill Reel's similar explanation as a post to our friends

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/ ... o-tithing/

However, I'm pretty sure Bill doesn't refer to the Lorenzo Snow St George video propaganda - which had me Reeling for days once I read it.

Anyway I'm just an empty vessel right now as I do not want to rock the boat too much at home.


I also apologise for the awful puns.

RJ

Thank you, Bill summarizes the surplus option really well.

That link includes an Orson Hyde quote as follows:

The celestial law requires one-tenth part of all a man’s substance which he possesses at the time he comes into the church and one-tenth part of his annual increase ever after.

This is consistent with what I said.

Before joining the church, a person's "net worth" from the perspective of the church is zero. Then after joining, their "net worth" is comprised of all that they possess at that point in time. Thus, they have an "increase" beginning at zero, and then increasing to represent all that they possess. Thus, their "increase" is everything at the beginning. They would pay 1/10 of everything when they join.

Thereafter, their "increase" begins at that point, and is measured from there. So they pay 1/10 of their annual increase thereafter.

Orson Hyde said exactly what I said.

10.) If tithing is a lesser law than consecration, why does it currently demand more of your money (the gross or net model) than did consecration (a tenth of surplus).

This quote from the link mischaracterizes consecration. Consecration is *not* paying a tenth of surplus. Neither is tithing supposed to be paying a tenth of surplus. Consecration and tithing are interrelated. You cannot truly have one without the other.

Consecration requires that *everything* you have be used for the "building up of the Kingdom". Nothing is to be withheld. However, this, in itself, is often misunderstood, because you are *also* to be made the steward over the property that you are consecrating. In other words, you make the decisions in how it is to be used. But you are expected to be a good steward, and you are expected to calculate it's use to be of best overall consequence for the "Kingdom". Looking at this from the outside, it won't look a lot different from the classic private property model of capitalism, because you are still the one "in charge" over the property you consecrated. But the expectation of how you will *use* that stewardship agency is that you will manage it's use to be for the benefit of the "Kingdom".

The portion of your stewardship that you are not currently using is represented by your cash reserves. You turn those into the Lord's storehouse for other stewards to use. But an accounting is made of your incomings and outgoings (i.e., your deposits and your withdrawals). When the Kirtland bank was established, the expectation was that your cash be deposited into the bank, under your name. That cash would then be loaned out to other stewards as needed. If at some point in time you yourself needed it, you could draw it back out. This is nothing more than the common pattern of commercial banking. There is nothing mysterious about it, and nothing difficult to understand.

Then, for your stewardship, 1/10 of the *increase* in the financial worth of that stewardship is to be diverted to another purpose, outside of your direct control. That is the tithing.

These ideas are interrelated, and synergistic with each other. And it is *nothing* like the current church actually does it.

These are economic ideals and principles based on cooperation rather than competition. Cooperation and competition are opposites. The belief, at the time, was that an economy based on cooperation could out-produce an economy based on competition. And that is why the early men of the church made their "prophecies" that those who supported the Kirtland bank (and related economic efforts) would grow rich in comparison to those who did not. But history instead had a different result.

Keep in mind, also, that these ideas pre-dated many of Karl Marx' publications, who also advocated an economy based on cooperation rather than competition. There are good academic arguments that can be made for that approach. However, how and why it fails in actual practice is another topic.

My martial arts instructor was born in Korea. We are good friends. He told me of a quote supposedly by Winston Churchill that essentially said, "If you are under 30 years old and haven't considered communism, you are uneducated. But if you are over 30 and are considering communism, you are unintelligent".

There's lots more that could be said for what happened in those early days, and how it relates to what is written in the D&C. But this is enough for now.

**Edited to add: my martial arts instructor also asked me this question yesterday: "do Mormons have any idea how ridiculous they look to the rest of the world?" I just smiled and shrugged my shoulders.

Just Curious - thanks for the insight. As for your Martial Arts Instructor - no, I don't think most Mormons do, we are still basking in the light of the Mormon Moment, those that do think we look ridiculous to others reframe it as 'strange and peculiar' which is evidence that we are God's chosen people.

Just Curious

Fascinating, and a riveting insight.
Got to dig more into this.