Mormons: When did the Great Apostasy occur?

[ParkerD]

…the version of the Bible you have is corrupt, and its contents tampered or removed by one man, Martin Luther who had no one to challenge him…

Kathleen,

You may go ahead and present specifics about a single example of what you think is corrupt in either what Martin Luther “tampered” or what William Tyndale translated into English which became the basis of the King James translation in large measure. Then, we can compare with closer texts to the original Hebrew or Greek, and examine the situation and your logic in detail rather than having the broad brush that anyone can do.

If you’re talking about the Apocrypha, then go ahead and show an example of a text that matches the Bible in its doctrinal relevance and doctrinal power and saving and exalting influence in the hearts of humankind, without any drawbacks in the entire text and with the authority of a prophet who spoke the words quoted.

 

[Peter_John]

… I and the Latter-day Saints through our doctrine believe the Bible is authoritative and far more accurate in its specific words than any other religion.

Joseph Smith alters the specific words and whole passages, many included within your KJV edition and footnoted. You consider other accounts of parts of Genesis with no sources more accurate than the specific wording of the Bible. You consider an alternative version of Matthew 24 scripture, though not even a genuine translation from any records. It is Joseph Smtih’s rewording of what he claims God told him it should say.

Just because we acknowledge that it would be even more accurate as the revealed word of God if it had not been slightly mistranslated or mis-copied in some cases and is misunderstood and therefore mis-taught by some teachers and leaders, does not mean we don’t take it as the word of God and as authoritative.

You believe it only slightly mistranslated? See if that sounds a reasonable claim at the end of this post.

It does not stand on its own as a sole authority, and was never intended in that way by God as clearly taught in both the Old Testament and the New Testament.

No argument here. The Holy Bible, including both the Hebrew and Greek Old Testament and the New Testament was compiled as a liturgical instrument to practices and sacraments that had already existed through revelation hundreds of years before their selection and compilation into one volume. If you do not understand the revelatory tradition or the liturgy resulting from it, you cannot understand the Bible.

In no case you can point to will you be able to show that the Latter-day Saints depart from the doctrine presented in the Bible when taken as a total teaching rather than taking one or two verses and building a doctrine from a verse or two, with no corroborating cross references that consistently teach the same doctrine and reinforce it.

A few verses refer to multiple gods and you say it supports believing in such, instead of what the whole record shows: The ancient Jews continually fell back to pagan traditions, God kept telling them they “do not understand” until in the Books you do not accept they came to recognize that there was one God and only one God and the others were false, not gods at all, not existing at all.(1 Maccabees,Wisdom).
One verse refers to baptisms for the dead, which you affirm as authority for an entire set of dogmas. Couldn’t it simply mean taking on the names of faithful departed at baptism, as we now acknowledge patron saints at baptism or confirmation? In baptism we honor those faithful departed
I would hardly call rejecting the Books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach,Baruch, & 1 & 2 Maccabees as taking the Bible as a total teaching. In addition the only footnote from Song of Songs in the LDS -KJV is that Joseph Smith specifically rejected it as inspired, so add that for eight total books in the Bible you ignore. That’s 17% of the volumes in the OT, and 12% of the volumes in the entire Bible you dismiss.

If you would like to try, go ahead, but please make it into only one post as I don’t look at a whole string of posts from the same person.

Just did, as did my string of posts. However, for emphasis, your theologuy does not recognize this prophecy about 150 years before Christ as scripture, or consider it in theology. If you do, refer us to the manual:Wisdom 32:12-22

12 Let us beset the just one, because he is obnoxious to us; he sets himself against our doings, Reproaches us for transgressions of the law and charges us with violations of our training.

13 He professes to have knowledge of God and styles himself a child of the LORD.
14 To us he is the censure of our thoughts; merely to see him is a hardship for us,
15 Because his life is not like other men’s, and different are his ways.
16 He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the just and boasts that God is his Father.
17 Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him.
18 For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes.
19 With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience.
20 Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him."
21 These were their thoughts, but they erred; for their wickedness blinded them,
22 And they knew not the hidden counsels of God; neither did they count on a recompense of holiness nor discern the innocent souls’ reward.

As you cross-ref, shouldn’t the only OT book referring to myrrh and gold in close proximity, and “myrrh, with frankincense” mattter? Yet rejecting Song of Songs simply from concupiscent misdirection, denies you: Song 6:10-12

12 Before I knew it, my heart had made me
the blessed one of my kinswomen.

 

[Peter_John]

Peter John,
… the same person.

I still await your response to: I will further question your ffirmation that you believe in a one-to-one realtionship with Christ lacking an intermediary. If someone in your congregation commits adultery, is it fine for them to resolve it just by talking with Jesus or with heavenly Father privately in Prayer? If they do not confess to an appropriate Church authority, are the sacraments they receive considered valid? Can a person in your faith receive the highest blessing of eternity without going to the temple? Can they go to the temple just by talking to God in prayer, and get a recommend?

 

[Peter_John]

Kathleen,

You may go ahead and present specifics about a single example of what you think is corrupt in either what Martin Luther “tampered” or what William Tyndale translated into English which became the basis of the King James translation in large measure. Then, we can compare with closer texts to the original Hebrew or Greek, and examine the situation and your logic in detail rather than having the broad brush that anyone can do.

If you’re talking about the Apocrypha, then go ahead and show an example of a text that matches the Bible in its doctrinal relevance and doctrinal power and saving and exalting influence in the hearts of humankind, without any drawbacks in the entire text and with the authority of a prophet who spoke the words quoted.

LOL!! You affirm you believe the KJV but want criticism of the Tyndale? Talk about a bait and swithch!

That automatically means that the alterations in the KJV to boost the divine right of Kings cannot come under scrutiny.

I still await your response to:
I will further question your ffirmation that you believe in a one-to-one realtionship with Christ lacking an intermediary. If someone in your congregation commits adultery, is it fine for them to resolve it just by talking with Jesus or with heavenly Father privately in Prayer? If they do not confess to an appropriate Church authority, are the sacraments they receive considered valid? Can a person in your faith receive the highest blessing of eternity without going to the temple? Can they go to the temple just by talking to God in prayer, and get a recommend?

 

[ParkerD]

… baptisms for the dead, which you affirm…

Peter John,

The cross references for the need and requirement for baptism for all men and women and for the teaching of the gospel in the spirit world are easily identified:

John 3:5, 17
Matthew 28:19, 20
John 5:25-29
1 Peter 3:19
1 Peter 4:6
Malachi 4:5, 6

I don’t see the doctrinal relevance of anything else you posted on that post, so I don’t see the need to discuss the other points, nor will I unless you show specific doctrinal relevance that is shown to have been inspired by God through a known prophet at the time of the writing or the speaking of the message, and show how Latter-day Saint doctrine differs from the Biblical doctrine (King James translation) that you are discussing.

 

[ParkerD]

I will further question your affirmation that you believe in a one-to-one relationship with Christ lacking an intermediary.

Peter John,
A member who made the covenant of baptism which promised to keep the commandments of God forever thereafter, then broke that covenant in the serious manner you mentioned, has harmed their relationship with Christ and they will know that if they have been a serious believer and a serious student of Biblical truths and teachings at all. They will be willing to come in at the gate and not try and skirt around the gate of sincere repentance, including making known to the one who holds the keys over the ordinance of partaking communion, that they had placed themselves and another person in a harmed and dangerous spiritual situation as warned against in 1 Corinthians 11:27-30 and as warned against in the Ten Commandments.

It is entirely appropriate that the apostles and the bishops be about the work and mission of seeking the “perfecting of the saints” and the “edifying of the body of Christ” (Ephesians 4:13), and protecting against wolves among the flock of God. So confession to a bishop, the holder of the keys related to the ordinance of communion, is entirely appropriate and in keeping with the doctrine presented in the New Testament. And the need for the Holy Ghost on the part of the apostles as shown in John 20:22-23, to discern worthiness and discern whether sins have been repented of in a grievous case, is entirely in keeping with that doctrine.

Discerning and confirming worthiness for making the sacred temple covenants wherein keys are also an essential component for those ordinances to be bound in heaven, is also completely consistent with both the Old and New Testaments. If you need me to look up examples of cases where the worthiness of a person or a selected set of people was part of the criteria for their access to sacred ordinances and covenants with God, then let me know and I’ll look them up when I have the time.

A person continues and grows in a one-to-one relationship with Christ through trusting Him as a Greater Source of wisdom than they themselves or the Bible alone, and through trusting in the inspiration whereby covenants are ordained among humankind for their benefit and blessing. One unwilling to make covenants would be turning away from the growth in a one-to-one relationship Christ offers them, through their own choosing against such covenants.

Covenants are an opportunity He offers to be strengthened and refined and blessed. That is entirely in keeping with the gospel He and the apostles taught, and entirely in keeping with the teaching of strengthening our one-to-one relationship with Him.

 

[Peter_John]

Peter John,
A member who made the covenant of baptism which promised to keep the commandments of God forever thereafter, then broke that covenant in the serious manner you mentioned, has harmed their relationship with Christ and they will know that if they have been a serious believer and a serious student of Biblical truths and teachings at all. They will be willing to come in at the gate and not try and skirt around the gate of sincere repentance, including making known to the one who holds the keys over the ordinance of partaking communion, that they had placed themselves and another person in a harmed and dangerous spiritual situation as warned against in 1 Corinthians 11:27-30 and as warned against in the Ten Commandments.

It is entirely appropriate that the apostles and the bishops be about the work and mission of seeking the “perfecting of the saints” and the “edifying of the body of Christ” (Ephesians 4:13), and protecting against wolves among the flock of God. So confession to a bishop, the holder of the keys related to the ordinance of communion, is entirely appropriate and in keeping with the doctrine presented in the New Testament. And the need for the Holy Ghost on the part of the apostles as shown in John 20:22-23, to discern worthiness and discern whether sins have been repented of in a grievous case, is entirely in keeping with that doctrine.

Discerning and confirming worthiness for making the sacred temple covenants wherein keys are also an essential component for those ordinances to be bound in heaven, is also completely consistent with both the Old and New Testaments. If you need me to look up examples of cases where the worthiness of a person or a selected set of people was part of the criteria for their access to sacred ordinances and covenants with God, then let me know and I’ll look them up when I have the time.

A person continues and grows in a one-to-one relationship with Christ through trusting Him as a Greater Source of wisdom than they themselves or the Bible alone, and through trusting in the inspiration whereby covenants are ordained among humankind for their benefit and blessing. One unwilling to make covenants would be turning away from the growth in a one-to-one relationship Christ offers them, through their own choosing against such covenants.

Covenants are an opportunity He offers to be strengthened and refined and blessed. That is entirely in keeping with the gospel He and the apostles taught, and entirely in keeping with the teaching of strengthening our one-to-one relationship with Him.

You do not neeed to convince me that having such thing as clergy to hear confessions as needed are Biblical. I do not dispute that. I dispute your representation of Mormonism as just between the individual and Jesus. You have spent many words now saying that according to Mormonism an individual cannot have a complete personal relationship with Christ without another person’s approval, that serious sin is not just a matter between an individual and Jesus, and that you cannot get what you consider the greatest blessing of the gospel just by asking Jesus, you have to go through the church and church leaders to do it. So don’t try misrepresenting to readers that happen by this site otherwise about your faith, Be honest about it, Your own scriptures say that it is contrary to the law and order of heaven for a just man to deceive.

 

[Peter_John]

Peter John,

The cross references … I don’t see the doctrinal relevance of anything else you posted on that post, so I don’t see the need to discuss the other points, nor will I unless you show specific doctrinal relevance that is shown to have been inspired by God through a known prophet at the time of the writing or the speaking of the message, and show how Latter-day Saint doctrine differs from the Biblical doctrine (King James translation) that you are discussing.

Gladly. I start with something we can agree upon. Your Book of Mormon says that plain and precious parts of scripture accepted as Word of God at the time of Jesus, removed after the Bible went forth from the Jews to the Gentiles.That is correct.
It does not tell you that** they were even included in the King James Version of the Bible**. My great-grandfather, a protestant and a Freemason, had a very old family King James Bible that included them (big cuss, with lots of woodcut prints)
.

They include more specific prophecies about Jesus, teachings on spirit prison, and our need to do work for the dead. They include mystical doctrine of marriage, the demon’s desire to destroy it, hidden knowledge that better explains parables, secret keys to prosperity, and the only scriptural account of the mission of Archangel Raphael, whom you accept as scripture appeared to Joseph Smith in the Kirtland Temple.

First, two plain and precious Messianic passages among the 12% of the Bible’s books removed after the Bible went forth from the Jews to the Gentiles:

Wisdom 2:10-22 – King James Version
10] Let us oppress the poor righteous man, let us not spare the widow, nor reverence the ancient gray hairs of the aged.
11] Let our strength be the law of justice: for that which is feeble is found to be nothing worth.
12] Therefore let us lie in wait for the righteous; because he is not for our turn, and he is clean contrary to our doings: he upbraideth us with our offending the law, and objecteth to our infamy the transgressings of our education.
13] He professeth to have the knowledge of God: and he calleth himself the child of the Lord.
14] He was made to reprove our thoughts.
15] He is grievous unto us even to behold: for his life is not like other men’s, his ways are of another fashion.
16] We are esteemed of him as counterfeits: he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness: he pronounceth the end of the just to be blessed, and maketh his boast that God is his father.
17] Let us see if his words be true: and let us prove what shall happen in the end of him.
18] For if the just man be the son of God, he will help him, and deliver him from the hand of his enemies.
19] Let us examine him with despitefulness and torture, that we may know his meekness, and prove his patience.
20] Let us condemn him with a shameful death: for by his own saying he shall be respected.
21] Such things they did imagine, and were deceived: for their own wickedness hath blinded them.
22] As for the mysteries of God, they knew them not: neither hoped they for the wages of righteousness, nor discerned a reward for blameless souls.
And
Wisdom 7:3-6 King James Version
3] And when I was born, I drew in the common air, and fell upon the earth, which is of like nature, and the first voice which I uttered was crying, as all others do.
4] I was nursed in swaddling clothes, and that with cares.
5] For there is no king that had any other beginning of birth.
6] For all men have one entrance into life, and the like going out.

Seven books in the King James Bible have been removed, as well as the portions removed from books otherwise still in the KJV.These include portions of Daniel and Esther left out of your edition of the King James Bible. They were all accepted as scripture in the time of Christ, and he refers to them. After the Gentile converts to Christianity accepted them, the Jews had a findamenalist revival and decided to take them out of their canon. Later Martin Luther rejected them, but since King James wanted his translation to be for all his people (as long as it emphasized the divine right of kings) he included them, and threw in some of scholarly interest. Fortunately, the Catholics had kept preserving them through persecution and disaster, so they could also become part of the King James translation of the Biible.

Since it was your idea I will gladly discuss their doctrines with you. I love them as much as I used to love your Book of Mormon. All we need to do is set up a new thread, or crash the party in an old one on the topic.

 

[ParkerD]

You do not neeed to convince me that having such thing as clergy to hear confessions as needed are Biblical. I do not dispute that. I dispute your representation of Mormonism as just between the individual and Jesus. You have spent many words now saying that according to Mormonism an individual cannot have a complete personal relationship with Christ without another person’s approval, that serious sin is not just a matter between an individual and Jesus, and that you cannot get what you consider the greatest blessing of the gospel just by asking Jesus, you have to go through the church and church leaders to do it. So don’t try misrepresenting to readers that happen by this site otherwise about your faith, Be honest about it, Your own scriptures say that it is contrary to the law and order of heaven for a just man to deceive.

I already had explained about confession to a bishop in a case of adultery, and why that is necessary.

The personal relationship with Christ comes about when a person “goes and sins no more” as regards adultery, and they enter into a relationship whereby they are still going to be changing through repentance but are not dealing with serious sins such as adultery in what they do wrong and need to repent of. Those are two very different situations, and the “perfecting of the saints” is the latter kind of case and is what the apostles were mostly teaching about in their epistles talking about love, faithfulness, seeking the gifts of the Spirit, being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, enduring in faith with hope in Christ, and so forth.

 

[Peter_John]

I already had explained about confession to a bishop in a case of adultery, and why that is necessary.

The personal relationship with Christ comes about when a person “goes and sins no more” as regards adultery, and they enter into a relationship whereby they are still going to be changing through repentance but are not dealing with serious sins such as adultery in what they do wrong and need to repent of. Those are two very different situations, and the “perfecting of the saints” is the latter kind of case and is what the apostles were mostly teaching about in their epistles talking about love, faithfulness, seeking the gifts of the Spirit, being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, enduring in faith with hope in Christ, and so forth.

But as you describe it they still cannot repair a damaged relationship with the Savior unless they grow through a church leader. That is not a one on one relationship with Christ> What if someone told you in a personal relationship, “If you break any promises with me you are no longer my friend until you tell my bitler all about it and he says you can be my friend again.”

Also, isn’t it true that when the sinner is an Elder it takes the decision of at least 12 men, besides the person’s Bishop, to admit them back into full fellowship? That sounds like a one-onon relationship already.

Isn’t it true that in some cases the local authority is not considered enough, and an Apostle or the First Presidency have to approve a Stake High Council decision?

How you spend your charitable contributions is not even just between you and Jesus. Aren’t you expected to account for your tithing once a year? No matter how much you give away, if you have not given at least 10 percent of your income to the Church specifically, you do not pay a full tithe, and cannot go to the Temple? Not much one on one there etihter.

If this is all true, I do not see a one-on-one relationship for Jesus available for sinners, only for the righteous. Didn’t he say he came not righteous, but sinners to repentance?

 

[rinnie]

Hi Parker regarding post 328.

You are saying ST Paul is saying the Asostles could forgive all sins because Christ wants this simply because he paid for all sins.

Now while I agree that Christ indeed paid for all sins and all we have to do is believe and repent that sin and stop doing it, if you interpretation of scripture is correct and St Paul knows Christ wants all sins to be forgiven, then why does he say that what is forgiven on earth is forgiven in heaven and what is bound on earth is bound on earth.

What is held bound mean to you? And if Christ does not want some sins to held bound why did he say that?

 

[rinnie]

But as you describe it they still cannot repair a damaged relationship with the Savior unless they grow through a church leader. That is not a one on one relationship with Christ> What if someone told you in a personal relationship, “If you break any promises with me you are no longer my friend until you tell my bitler all about it and he says you can be my friend again.”

Also, isn’t it true that when the sinner is an Elder it takes the decision of at least 12 men, besides the person’s Bishop, to admit them back into full fellowship? That sounds like a one-onon relationship already.

Isn’t it true that in some cases the local authority is not considered enough, and an Apostle or the First Presidency have to approve a Stake High Council decision?

How you spend your charitable contributions is not even just between you and Jesus. Aren’t you expected to account for your tithing once a year? No matter how much you give away, if you have not given at least 10 percent of your income to the Church specifically, you do not pay a full tithe, and cannot go to the Temple? Not much one on one there etihter.

If this is all true, I do not see a one-on-one relationship for Jesus available for sinners, only for the righteous. Didn’t he say he came not righteous, but sinners to repentance?

Also if this is true where is it taught in scripture. Was it not Christ that said to take care of your Mother and Father first, now in the CC we are indeed told to give to the Church but Charity begins at home.

If we cannot afford to give the amount that is asked we are not thrown out of the Church. Where is it a teaching that they are to be thrown out. Is this a teaching of Joseph Smith also?

If so this is in another direct conflict with the word of God.

 

[Peter_John]

Also if this is true where is it taught in scripture. Was it not Christ that said to take care of your Mother and Father first, now in the CC we are indeed told to give to the Church but Charity begins at home.

If we cannot afford to give the amount that is asked we are not thrown out of the Church. Where is it a teaching that they are to be thrown out. Is this a teaching of Joseph Smith also?

If so this is in another direct conflict with the word of God.

To clarify, they are not thrown out of the Church for paying an incomplete tithe… They are not permitted to enjoy all the benefits of membership.

Interstingly, the law is “one-tenth of increase”. I have seen people who own their own businesses, and their homes and cars are part of their business assets, making over $100,000 a year, paying little in tithing (the mortgage, the car payments, the insurance costs, all count as legitimate business expenses, and so do not count as increase) even though they get the benfits of living in the home and driving the car, and getting their temple recommend. At the same time, families making under 25,000 a year with several kids who rent and only have their job income to claim, who do not get their temple recommend because they have not paid a full 10 percent of their income. Personally, I would argue that they had no increase – especially when the government agrees and their earned income tax credit gets them more back than they paid in, and they need food stamps to feed their kids, but that does not count for them. If it’s on their paycheck and they do not give 10percent, they do not get to go to the Temple.

To be fair, I have also known members who consider not just their income but the value of their insurance benefits when paying their tithing. My point above is that the application of the rule, at least while I was involved, was biased to favor the wealthier members.

 

[ParkerD]

Also if this is true where is it taught in scripture. Was it not Christ that said to take care of your Mother and Father first, now in the CC we are indeed told to give to the Church but Charity begins at home.

If we cannot afford to give the amount that is asked we are not thrown out of the Church. Where is it a teaching that they are to be thrown out. Is this a teaching of Joseph Smith also?

If so this is in another direct conflict with the word of God.

Rinnie,

A non-full tithe member is not “thrown out”. Living by the law of tithing brings the blessings of “opening the windows of heaven”, which many many Latter-day Saints are very familiar with in the lives of their families. It is not a question of “if I don’t I’ll be interviewed.” It’s a question of “do I really believe in the promises of God and if so, do I have enough faith to show it by my actions in real life situations?” Then, the blessings come in many, many ways that the person sees happening in their life.

People can grow in living by the law of tithing more fully, just like they can grow in living by other principles of the gospel, and the apostles taught to grow in faith as did the Savior.

By the way, the early church lived by having “all things in common among them”, so that is why you don’t read about the law of tithing as the doctrine they lived by at that time.

 

[TheExorcist]

Also, isn’t it true that when the sinner is an Elder it takes the decision of at least 12 men, besides the person’s Bishop, to admit them back into full fellowship? That sounds like a one-onon relationship already.

Almost true. It isn’t the Priesthood office of the person in question, it’s whether they’ve been endowed (been through the temple) or not. And it depends on the severity of the sin. Usually those councils are reserved for thing like adultery and whatnot.

How you spend your charitable contributions is not even just between you and Jesus. Aren’t you expected to account for your tithing once a year? No matter how much you give away, if you have not given at least 10 percent of your income to the Church specifically, you do not pay a full tithe, and cannot go to the Temple? Not much one on one there etihter.

Yes it’s called tithing settlement. It happens at the end of the year. Also they never reveal how much the ward or stake ever takes in in tithing. But the tithing funds don’t stay at the local level anyway. They send it onto SLC. And yes, non full tithe payers cannot get a temple recommend.

 

[Peter_John]

By the way, the early church lived by having “all things in common among them”, so that is why you don’t read about the law of tithing as the doctrine they lived by at that time.

Actually the true application of the LDS Law of Tithing, though rarely expounded upon, is that the Church does share all things in common – all resources are consecrated to the work of the Lord – but God expects members to manage 90 percent of their increase as a personal stewardship and give 10 percent over for the Church to administer.

This means, for example, from an LDS perspective, an LDS priesthood holder who uses his assets to exploit others (I once used a landlord who wanted me to steal water as a term of rental contract as example) abuses his priesthood authority by so doing.​

I am thrilled with your eagerness to discuss doctrine from the King James Version of the Bible.

Judith King James Version - quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=3769041
Baruch King James Version - quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=4087835
Tobit- **King James Version **quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=3729381
Sirach King James Version - quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=4282674
Wisdom King James Version - quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=3849598
1 Maccabees King James Version - quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=4143194
2 Maccabees King James Version - http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=4282674
And though you do already have it :
Song of Solomon – **King James Version **http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=2578814
And another plain and precious truth deleted from the Bible after it went forth from the Gentiles to the Jews:

Song of Songs 6:9-10 King James Version
9] My dove, my undefiled is but one; she is the only one of her mother, she is the choice one of her that bare her. The daughters saw her, and blessed her; yea, the queens and the concubines, and they praised her.
10] Who is she that looketh forth as the morning, fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners?

So shall I start a new thread, or do we find one already existing?

 

[Peter_John]

Almost true. It isn’t the Priesthood office of the person in question, it’s whether they’ve been endowed (been through the temple) or not. And it depends on the severity of the sin. Usually those councils are reserved for thing like adultery and whatnot.

Yes it’s called tithing settlement. It happens at the end of the year. Also they never reveal how much the ward or stake ever takes in in tithing. But the tithing funds don’t stay at the local level anyway. They send it onto SLC. And yes, non full tithe payers cannot get a temple recommend.

Elders, endowed or not, have to answer through the Stake High Council, at least they used to years ago. However, these councils will likely be more lenient to one unendowed (not having been through the temple).

 

[KathleenGee]

I believe only two references to tithing are in the Old Testament.

The early Church was supported by those who were wealthy, and then again, they gave freely – no one decided for them the percentage they had to give to support the local church. They gave freely.

The Catholic Church has never imposed on people that they must pay 10% or anything of the like to be a member. We are exhorted to support the Church, and the bread and wine was brought in by members in the past.

Peter John, the scenario you describe is akin to what Catholic pastors understand…to have a working class family tithe 10% is very hard, impossible practically vs a couple who are affluent with no children and tithe 10%.

 

[RedDawgMCM]

So shall I start a new thread, or do we find one already existing?

I’d check in on this thread if you start a new one…You could broaden it out to the Protestant Canon in general/Mormon acceptance or lack of even that canon

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie,

A non-full tithe member is not “thrown out”. Living by the law of tithing brings the blessings of “opening the windows of heaven”, which many many Latter-day Saints are very familiar with in the lives of their families. It is not a question of “if I don’t I’ll be interviewed.” It’s a question of “do I really believe in the promises of God and if so, do I have enough faith to show it by my actions in real life situations?” Then, the blessings come in many, many ways that the person sees happening in their life.

People can grow in living by the law of tithing more fully, just like they can grow in living by other principles of the gospel, and the apostles taught to grow in faith as did the Savior.

By the way, the early church lived by having “all things in common among them”, so that is why you don’t read about the law of tithing as the doctrine they lived by at that time.

Hi Parker, don’t get me wrong I AGREE with giving to the Church. But my question is what if you can’t truly give. Say that at the end of the day you had to feed your mother, help pay her bills, and your own. And there is just not much left to give the full amount.

What does you Church do in that situation?