#45835--Tithing and Income

[Portia]

You and jooniper paid on the net, ignorant of the fact that God wanted you to pay on the gross.

PS, um, this is really the heart of the matter, to me. Who am I to say that God cared that these two paid on net before? I took it as a personal decision on both their parts: not that they thought they were sinners before, and had to pay on twenty years' back tithing, but more of an evolution in personal views.

But then, I'm not them, so I'll let them speak for themselves. It just comes off as a bit presumptuous, in my opinion. Am I right in assuming that you (vorpal) think God wants everyone to pay on X or Y, because that's how it comes across to me. I could be wrong, though.

[bismark]

bismark,

...

When we lack a proper understanding of something it is called ignorance. You and jooniper paid on the net, ignorant of the fact that God wanted you to pay on the gross. We know that it is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance (D&C 131:6). I read an interesting talk by Sterling W. Sill about how great a sin was ignorance. Ignorance, by itself, is a sin.

Can we agree that you ignorantly sinned in keeping the law of tithing when you were not paying on the gross? You both have since repented of that sin, and I’m sure you are forgiven. I’d just like to call a spade a spade.

here we are in disagreement over the nature of sin. i am assuming you are talking about this[1] talk? it seems to me that elder sill is saying willful ignorance is a sin, ie not caring about what further light and knowledge the Lord will give us. being simply ignorant of something is not a sin in the doctrine of the Gospel. i believe the scriptures plainly teach that sin occurs when man acts against his knowledge of God's will. adam and eve could not sin, because they did not have knowledge of good and evil, or in other words, they were ignorant. i don't believe there is such thing as ignorantly sinning. now, i know you can go into the scriptures and find a place where the words ignorant and sin are used together, but lets assume modern usage for this discussion: ignorant - lacking knowledge or comprehension (merriam-webster), sin - willfully disobey God's commandments or to fail to act righteously despite a knowledge of the truth (lds.org).

if someone who is sincerely seeking truth and knowledge for a period lives a commandment to the best of their imperfect knowledge, i cannot agree that they are sinning. when a catholic person is baptized into the lds church, they do not have to repent for having been baptized as a catholic when they were a child.

[1] http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?v ... &hideNav=1

[Yellow]

While we're going for definitions, though, let's look at repentance.

Repentance is not "Saying I'm sorry, truly sorry even, for something naughty you did in the past."

Repentance (as I understanding it) is admitting that our past actions have been contrary to the will of God. It "denotes a change of mind, ... a fresh view about God, oneself, and about the world. Repentance means a turning of the heart" (Bible Dictionary, slightly paraphrased).

When an adult is baptized into the church, he is not required to show evidence of a painstaking remorse over every single past misdeed he may have ever committed. Rather, he is required to show a true desire to follow God according to the new light and understanding received, abandoning all practices and beliefs he now knows to be false. Hence, repentance is not a band-aid to be placed on the wound of a former sin in order to heal it; it is a change in practices to avoid more wounds in the first place. The healing of the wounds comes from the Atonement, not from repentance.

In other words, when you repent of something (whether it be paying a lesser tithe, smoking, addiction, or incorrect beliefs), you abandon them and recognize that they were contrary, in some fashion, to God's desire. So yes, when a catholic person is baptized, they do repent of their catholic baptism. They recognize that it was not the baptism that God desired, and as such abandon belief in it as a saving ordinance.

To repent of something doesn't mean to condemn it, or to say that it wasn't a good choice at the time. It just means that you've acknowledged a better way. Repentance is not only for sinners; it is any process by which our desires and beliefs become one with those of God.

At the very least, this is my understanding of repentance, and I like it. It describes repentance as a positive, hope-filled action, and not one of shame and guilt. I believe this understanding is consistent with scriptural usage as well.

So where do I fall in this discussion? I believe that God wants to bless us as much as possible, and he will do so to the measure that we allow him. As we keep his commandments, we are blessed. When we gain greater understanding of his commandments and repent (by acknowledging that the new understanding is more important and abandoning old beliefs and traditions) in order to comply with this new understanding, God will bless us even more. Hence, I believe that God holds many blessings in store for us which are available only as we seek to draw closer to him. It's not that we're condemned or cursed for not being fully compliant. We just cannot receive the additional blessings which God is desirous to give us.

[vorpal blade]

I believe I need to bow out now, without giving my rebuttal. It has been an interesting discussion. I have been sincere, and I believe the topic is very important. I would like to leave on a lighter note, quoting Groucho Marx:

“Those are my principles. If you don’t like them, I have others.”

[Tao]

While not wanting to beat a dead horse, I think that here would be an adequate place to post a few thoughts I've had on sin. As I understand it the Hebrew word most often translated as 'sin' is avera meaning literally "to cross over", we see the same idea in English with phrases like "you've crossed the line" or even simply "transgress". Whereas in the {Koine} Greek the word for sin is an Aristotelian term: hamartia Classically translated to mean "to miss the mark". Both ideas imply boundaries that may or may not be well defined, both are adequate for describing the idea that we associate with 'sin'. But I think both mentalities have their dangers as well. with avera the temptation arises to say "There is no boundary here, therefore I did not cross it: I did not sin." (High school anyone?) Defining at which point you or someone else crosses the line is difficult when the lines are not clearly demarcated. Hamartia is more lenient in my eyes, as 'the mark' differs depending on the individual. In archery, the beginner rejoices when their arrow clips the edge of the widest circle and clings tenuously there, as they have avoided sin, they have hit their mark. As the beginner grows, merely hitting the target is no longer a cause for rejoicing. They have set their sights on the scoring zones, and to not hit them has now become hamartia, sin. Thus the definition of sin is dependent on the personal progress of the individual, requiring a very personal introspection to determine causality. The leniency of hamartia comes at a price though, in my eyes. Herein rests no safety, for all things become sin as one progresses towards perfection. While we would rejoice at hitting the bullseye, a professional might wince at being outside the cross hairs of exact center. Perfection is a dangerous idea in this mortal world, it can discourage the strong into despair and the weak into laziness leading to destruction of both.

Perhaps then, the balance to be struck might be found in considering avera when placed in a position to judge the transgressions of others, thereby not allowing sin to go unpunished but not rendering judgment until a line has assuredly been crossed. Perhaps we should reserve hamartia for viewing our own sins, bolstering our confidence when still beginning and trying to consistently hit the target, and cautioning humility and urging us onward when the bullseye becomes easier to hit.

At least those are my thoughts for now. Vorpal, I enjoy your quote, I can see its validity on a couple of different levels, thanks.