If we’re going to talk about tithing, we should start with what the Torah actually says. Not the Sunday school version. Not 10% of a paycheck.

The tithe in the law is assessed on the land’s increase: seed, fruit, herd and flock. A carpenter, a fisherman, a merchant — none of them are told to tithe their wages. You can convert produce to money in places: Leviticus lets you redeem a produce tithe by adding a fifth, and Deuteronomy lets you turn the feast tithe into silver if the sanctuary is too far. That is still not a tax on a paycheck. The church talks about tithing as if Moses were talking about your salary.

There is not one tithing statute in the Torah. There are at least two, and they do not say the same thing.

Leviticus 27:30-34 is the basic definition. The tithe of the land “is the Lord’s: it is holy unto the Lord.” If you want your produce back, you redeem it and add a fifth. Livestock is simpler: every tenth animal that passes under the rod is holy. You don’t pick the good ones. You don’t swap. The tenth belongs to YHWH.

Numbers 18 then says what happens to it. The tribe of Levi gets no land inheritance. Their inheritance is “all the tenth in Israel,” given for their service at the tabernacle. When the Levites take that tenth, they offer a tenth of it to Aaron the priest — “a tenth part of the tithe.” They eat the rest “in every place, ye and your households.” That is the priestly system in a sentence: the tithe is holy, it funds the landless sanctuary staff, and the priests get a cut of the Levites’ cut.

That “tithe of the tithe” is already in Numbers. It is not a later invention.

Deuteronomy 14:22-29 is a different picture.

Year by year you tithe the increase of the field. Then you eat it — “before the Lord thy God, in the place which he shall choose” — corn, wine, oil, firstlings, “that thou mayest learn to fear the Lord thy God always.” If the chosen place is too far, you turn it into money, carry the money, and spend it on “whatsoever thy soul lusteth after,” including wine and strong drink, and eat there with your household. Don’t forget the Levite in your gates. He has no inheritance with you.

Then, at the end of three years, you don’t take that tithe to the sanctuary at all. You lay it up “within thy gates,” and the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow eat and are satisfied.

Deuteronomy 18:1-2 repeats that the priests and the whole tribe of Levi have no land. They eat “the offerings of the Lord made by fire, and his inheritance.” It does not repeat Numbers 18’s machinery of a Levitical tenth plus a priestly tenth of that tenth.

So in Deuteronomy the tithe is mostly a pilgrimage feast you eat yourself, and every third year a local poor fund that still includes the Levite. In Numbers the tithe is the Levites’ paycheck, and you are not told to eat it.

Those are not two clauses of the same rule. One of them has you consuming your own tithe in Jerusalem. The other has you handing it over to Levi. Later Jewish teaching and a lot of Sunday school charts try to stack them — a first tithe to the Levites, a second tithe you eat, a third-year poor tithe — and then add it up to 20% or so of the crop. You can read the books that way if you assume Moses issued one seamless code. The texts themselves do not tell you to add them. They just sit next to each other and disagree.

The seventh year, the shmita, is related and also not spelled out as a tithing holiday. The land rests. Debts are released. People infer that you wouldn’t be tithing a harvest that wasn’t supposed to happen. The tithing passages don’t actually say “skip the tithe in year seven.”

One more text, even though it is offerings for the tabernacle and not the annual tithe. In Exodus 36 the people bring so much that the workmen tell Moses they have enough, and Moses has to restrain them from bringing more. When the need was met, they stopped. That is in the law-story too.

This is where Deuteronomy becomes a problem, and I think it is a real one.

The tradition is that Moses gave all of this at Sinai / in the plains of Moab, and Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are just different chapters of the same speech. If you read them as a historian instead of as a Sunday school manual, they look like two legal traditions that were written for different projects.

The priestly material (Leviticus, Numbers) is sanctuary law. It cares about holiness, inheritance, Aaron, and keeping the tabernacle staffed. The tithe belongs to YHWH and is assigned to Levi because Levi has no land. That is a priestly answer to a priestly question: how do the people who run the cult eat?

Deuteronomy is a different book. It centralizes worship at “the place which the Lord thy God shall choose” — which, in practice, is Jerusalem. It talks to households, not to Aaron. It wants you at the feast. It wants the poor in your own town fed every third year. The Levite is someone you are told not to forget, not the automatic owner of the whole tenth.

There is a pretty good argument that Deuteronomy as we have it is not a Mosaic transcript from centuries earlier. In 2 Kings 22, during the reign of Josiah (late 7th century BC), they “find” the book of the law in the temple. A lot of scholarship treats that book as Deuteronomy, or an early form of it: a reform document for a king trying to wipe out local shrines, concentrate worship in Jerusalem, and rewrite Israel’s covenant around that. If that is right, then the feast-tithe and the third-year poor tithe are Josiah-era law, or close to it. They are not Moses on the mountain adding a second 10% on top of Numbers 18.

The priestly tithe law is usually placed in a different stream — sanctuary scribes, concerned with who gets what inside the cult. Whether you date that material earlier or later than Josiah, it is not trying to do the same job Deuteronomy is trying to do. One funds the Levites (with a cut to Aaron’s line). One funds a pilgrimage and a poor box. Putting both in the same canon is how you get a Torah that can be read as “the law of tithing” while actually containing two programs.

Suffice it to say: the Bible never taught a flat 10% of wages. It taught a tenth of the land’s increase, and even that is defined two different ways depending on which law you are reading.

Nehemiah and Malachi come much later, after the exile, when people are trying to run a temple under Persia. They are not the Torah. They are what happens when you have a storehouse, a priesthood, and a shortfall. That is the next part.

This is the scripture. This is the one quoted in general conference, taught in Sunday school, brought up at tithing settlement. If you grew up in the church, you heard it as God asking you whether you had robbed him.

“Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.”

— Malachi 3:8

What does it actually say if you read the book?

Malachi is a series of disputes. God accuses. The other side answers with “wherein?” Chapter 1: “O ye priests, that despise my name. And ye say, Wherein have we despised thy name?” Then: polluted bread, blind and lame animals on the altar. Who accepts those offerings? The priests. They should know they are not acceptable. The same “wherein” pattern shows up again in 3:8.

Chapter 2:1 is not subtle. “And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you.” A few verses later the covenant is “with Levi.” They have “corrupted the covenant of Levi” and been “partial in the law.” When Yahweh comes in chapter 3, he comes to the temple to “purify the sons of Levi.”

Then verse 7, right before the tithing verses: you have gone away from my ordinances. Wherein shall we return? Then: you have robbed me in tithes and offerings.

The book has been talking to priests. They run the ordinances. They have gone astray. It is easy to read ye in 3:8 as still the clergy, not every farmer in Judah forgetting to write a check. That is the grain of chapters 1–2, and of 3:1–5 (“purify the sons of Levi”). It is not the whole picture.

Two distinctions matter.

First: all priests are Levites. Not all Levites are priests. The priests are Aaron’s line. The rest of Levi serves the sanctuary but is not Aaron. Numbers 18 gives Israel’s tenth to the Levites as their living. The Levites keep most of it and send a tenth of that tenth to Aaron. So the bulk of the first tithe is the Levites’ inheritance, not the priests’. Nehemiah 10:38 restates that arrangement. It does not invent a new 90% skim.

Second: Nehemiah 13 is about a broken storehouse, not a rewritten math. The high priest clears temple chambers for Tobiah. The Levites are not getting their portions, so they leave temple service and go back to their fields. That only happens if the people stopped bringing the tithe, or if the priests who controlled the treasuries were not passing the Levites their share, or both. Nehemiah restocks the treasuries and appoints people to distribute. Clarke, reading Malachi 3:10, points at that scene: they had withheld the tithes until there was not food enough and the sacred service was interrupted.

So 3:8 does not have to mean “Levites never tithed, therefore this must be about unpaid priestly tithes.” Levites were supposed to tithe what they received (Numbers 18:26). And 3:6 says “sons of Jacob.” 3:9 says “this whole nation.” 3:11 talks about crops. The addressee may widen from the priests to Israel. Judah is a Persian vassal, paying imperial taxes and temple dues. Some people cut corners. Religion and state are mixed together.

Here is the point that survives that. This is a post-exilic temple crisis. The book opens by rebuking priests who despise the altar. The storehouse is empty. “Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house” is about food in the temple, not 10% of a modern wage. Even if you read 3:8 as aimed at Israel as a whole, you are still lifting a verse out of that setting and aiming it at every member at tithing settlement.

That is one of my main issues with a lot of this. A commandment is written one way. Later it is treated as if it meant something else. It could be said that what is good for the goose is good for the gander — if the priests were cheating, the people shouldn’t cheat either. Fine. That is still not a charter for paycheck tithing in Utah.

By the first century the system in Judea is split along class and sect. The Sadducees run the temple tithe. They are the institutional heirs of that Levitical structure.

The Pharisees go the other direction. They tithe more than the Torah asks — mint, anise, cumin. Jesus’s problem is not that they forgot to pay.

“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.”

— Matthew 23:23 (see also Luke 11:42)

Mint, anise, and cumin are not in the Mosaic list. Grain, wine, oil, herd and flock are. The Pharisees are going beyond the statute. In Matthew, Jesus does not even tell them to stop. Going past the letter can be fine. It is not fine when it comes at the expense of the reason for the law: judgment, mercy, and faith. Strain at a gnat, swallow a camel. Clean the outside of the cup.

Luke 11:42 is the parallel — mint, rue, and “all manner of herbs,” plus “not to leave the other undone.” The two gospels still sit in slightly different arguments. Matthew is often still inside a Mosaic frame: keep the law, and keep the weightier matters too. Luke more often treats the law as fulfilled or completed, so the same scene can be doing different theological work. Either way the woe is not “you forgot to tithe.” It is extra-scrupulous tithing used as a substitute for judgment, mercy, and faith.

Luke 18 is the Pharisee in the temple: I fast twice a week, I give tithes of all that I possess. That is an aggressive reading of the law — not just produce, but everything he acquires. Mormons would recognize the instinct. Tithe every gain in the year. Jesus does not hold this man up as the model. The publican who has no list of religious credentials, just “God be merciful to me a sinner,” goes home justified.

Soon after that, the rich young ruler. Sell everything, give to the poor, follow me. That juxtaposition is on purpose, and it is a little messy, because Jesus will also tell people to go past the letter of the law. Don’t even swear. Turn the other cheek. The point is still the first two great commandments — love God, love your neighbor — not a performance of extra tithing. The Pharisee is keeping the rule and more, and he is still wrong, because of why he is doing it.

If you stack Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy the way later teaching does, a faithful farmer is looking at something like 20% of the crop, plus Roman taxes. The Pharisees accusing common people of not tithing properly starts to sound hollow. For a poor family it may not have been possible.

Then 70 AD. Temple gone. No Levitical priesthood to receive it as Numbers describes, no storehouse. The New Testament never commands Christians to tithe. Paul says give generously, cheerfully, according to your means. No percentage (2 Corinthians 9:6-7).

The early church did not require 10%.

Justin Martyr: the well-to-do, if they are willing, give what each thinks fit. It goes to orphans, widows, the sick.

Tertullian: a small donation on the monthly day, if he likes, if he is able. “There is no compulsion; all is voluntary.” Spent on the poor, not on feasts.

Irenaeus will tell Christians they can give more freely than a tithe. That is liberty, not a new tax.

The Catholic Encyclopedia is pretty honest about what happens next. The church grew. Institutions needed a permanent income. “The payment of tithes was adopted from the Old Law.” First formal Western rules: bishops at Tours, 567, and Mâcon, 585. That is church law, not the apostles.

Charlemagne makes it a civil obligation in 779 (Capitulary of Herstal). The state will enforce it. The Admonitio Generalis in 789 is a broader reform program, not the tithing statute. Medieval theory split the tithe four ways — building, poor, bishop, parish priest. In practice the poor’s share shrank as the institution got richer. Same pattern: the house of God and the vulnerable lose, the office keeps.

Luther did not treat Mosaic tithing as binding on Gentiles. He said so in How Christians Should Regard Moses (1525). He still liked a tithe as a civil tax because it would be lighter than the rents he was paying. Calvin is mixed. On Matthew 23:23 he calls tithes an “appendage.” Elsewhere he writes as if ministers still need provision. They wanted giving. They did not settle 10% as gospel law.

England kept tithe as a land tax until 1836, then a rent charge, and it wasn’t fully wound down until 1936.

The version American Christians know — 10% of income to your church, non-negotiable, Malachi 3:10 as the prooftext — is mostly 19th century. Professional clergy, denominations, building programs. The “storehouse tithing” push gets rolling in the 1870s–1890s. That is the air Lorenzo Snow is breathing in St. George.

Joseph did not start with tithing. The early church tried consecration: deed everything to the bishop, get a stewardship back based on need, surplus to the common fund. Missouri. It mostly failed.

By 1837 the church is in real trouble. Kirtland Safety Society has collapsed. People are in debt. Apostasy. Joseph has over $4,000 due to his attorneys in July 1838.

In September 1837 Bishop Whitney asks members to bring tithes into the storehouse. On 6–7 December, Partridge, Morley, and Corrill propose something more formal: tithe a percentage of what a man is worth after debts, the rate set each year by what the church actually needs. For 1838 they suggest 2 percent. Widows, and families not worth over $75, should not have to tithe and should still keep an honorable standing.

That is almost always left out of the lesson. They knew a tithe was 10%. They still asked for 2%, because they were trying to cover expenses, not quote Leviticus. To be fair, this is a proposal. Nobody claimed it as revelation. I can see why a short church history lesson wouldn’t linger on it. It still tells you how they were thinking: net worth, not income, and the poor exempt.

The next year they ask the Lord how much he requires. 8 July 1838, same day that attorney payment is due, Joseph dictates what becomes D&C 119.

“I require all their surplus property to be put into the hands of the bishop of my church in Zion… And this shall be the beginning of the tithing of my people. And after that, those who have thus been tithed shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever.”

— D&C 119:1, 3-4

Two steps. First: all surplus. Not 10% of surplus. Everything above what the family needs to live. Then, annually: one-tenth of interest.

Interest is the word everyone fights over. Webster 1828 has several senses, including profit on money lent, but also share, concern, surplus advantage. I wouldn’t hang this on a dictionary. Two weeks later Bishop Partridge writes Whitney and explains the plan: a man worth $1,000, interest $60 (6% was the common legal rate in Ohio and Missouri if you didn’t agree otherwise), one-tenth of that interest is $6. That is a bishop, present when the revelation was given, telling another bishop how to administer it.

So: surplus first, then a tenth of a notional return on net worth. A family with no net worth pays nothing. A family worth a million, after that first surplus is already in, pays $6,000 a year at Partridge’s 6% — not $100,000, which is what you get if you treat the million itself as if it were a paycheck.

This also lines up with the JST of Genesis 14, which Joseph did in 1830–31, before consecration really got going and well before 119:

“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.”

The KJV has “tithes of all.” The JST narrows it to surplus. That is Joseph’s own revision of Abraham, pointing the same direction.

Is the 6% a wealth tax on paper net worth, including a house that hasn’t sold? Partridge’s example is “if a man is worth a $1000.” I think he means net worth after debts. Whether unrealized gains on a house count is the kind of question 119 never answers, and I am not going to pretend it does. The direction is still clear. You are not tithing your grocery money. You are tithing increase on what you already have after your family is provided for.

Joseph dies in 1844. That August the Twelve send an epistle: every member is to “proceed immediately to tithe himself or herself, a tenth of all their property and money,” then “continue to pay in a tenth of their income from that time forth.” That is not a clarification of surplus and interest. That is a tenth of everything you have, then a tenth of income. The real turn is here, months after Joseph is gone. Not 1899.

John Taylor in January 1845 is already mixing the vocabulary: tenth of all you possess when you enter the covenant, then “one tenth of their interest, or income yearly afterwards.” Interest or income. The slide is underway.

1847, Millennial Star vol. 9, Orson Hyde:

“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. If it requires all a man can earn to support himself and family, he is not tithed at all. The celestial law does not take the mother’s and children’s bread.”

“Annual increase” is doing a lot of work. Is that salary? Increase in net worth? Either way, the poor are still exempt. If you need everything you earn to live, you are not tithed. That is a better system than pay first and maybe the bishop helps you later. If you need the church’s assistance, why are you paying anything?

The rich thinking it a hard law only makes sense if it still looks like a claim on substance, not on a salary. Hyde says the poor will pay readily because it isn’t particularly required of them. The rich find it hard.

Lorenzo Snow in St. George, 17–18 May 1899, then October conference:

“I plead with you in the name of the Lord, and I pray that every man, woman and child who has means shall pay one tenth of their income as a tithing.”

Income. The 1844 letter already used the word. What Snow adds is a president of the church, drought, temple worthiness, and a campaign. Later manuals often drop “who has means.”

Then the handbooks, one quiet change at a time.

Of course people were confused. I have sat in meetings where nothing gets finalized and it lands on a guilt trip. Pay what you feel the Lord should have. Do you want gross blessings or net blessings?

19 March 1970, First Presidency. The simplest statement we know is the Lord’s own: one-tenth of interest annually, “which is understood to mean income. No one is justified in making any other statement than this.” Then: every member should decide what he thinks he owes the Lord.

That letter is odd. They say just repeat what the Lord said. Then they redefine the Lord’s word in the same sentence. They had the word income in the 1800s. If he meant income, why didn’t he use it? They also say no one should make any other statement — while making one.

What they do not say is 10% of gross. Gross was 1963, then they backed off. Since 1970 the official line is: interest means income, and you decide. The culture, tithing settlement, and the temple recommend do the rest. I have always understood it as 10% of anything that came in, with a heavy thumb on the gross side. That is how it was taught around me. That is not actually what the 1970 letter requires.

No new revelation. The law just moved.

Take a young family in Utah. $80,000 income. I am keeping an older round figure of about $66,000 for expenses for a family of three so the table is an illustration, not a 2026 budget. MIT’s current living-wage number for two adults and one child with one working adult is more like $83,000 — which would mean this family has no surplus at all under today’s costs. Use the $66,000 against $80,000 and you have about $14,000 left if nobody tithes.

If they treat the cultural rule as 10% of gross, paid first, that is $8,000. Savings: $6,000. Under the 1838 reading — no net worth yet, and if it takes everything to live you are not tithed — they keep the $14,000.

The family paying gross takes about twice as long to buy a house. After ten years the others have roughly double the savings, and that is without compounding. I ran this with 6% and 8% returns. It does not get kinder to the gross payer.

Someone making $100,000 and tithing gross pays $10,000. Someone worth $1,000,000 under Partridge’s 6% pays $6,000. The wage earner with no wealth pays more than the millionaire on paper. Today the very wealthy often don’t live on a salary. Stock, options, unrealized gains. If “income” means a paycheck, the system is easier on them than a claim on net worth would be. The church being vague here does not hit everyone the same.

That is why I prefer the 1838 direction, even with the fuzzy edges. People without means pay little or nothing and can actually start building something. They pay more as they get wealthier, when the family can carry it. The current setup hamstrings the people who can least afford it, then tells them to see the bishop.

In 2019 a former Ensign Peak manager, David Nielsen, went to the IRS alleging a fund on the order of $100 billion, parked in part through shell LLCs. The SEC in 2023 described about $32 billion in U.S. equities by 2018 and thirteen LLCs used so there would not be one 13F filing. Independent later estimates of total church wealth — notably the Widow’s Mite Report — run well above $200 billion. Those are not the same number as the SEC’s 2018 equities. Combined penalty: $5 million. Ensign Peak $4 million, the Church $1 million.

The defense is Joseph in Egypt. Seven years of plenty. Rainy-day fund.

I don’t have a problem with a reserve. The church was broke for a lot of its history. The question is when a reserve becomes something else, and what counts as the rainy day.

If the portfolio is already large enough that a normal return covers operations, why are members still being tithed as if the storehouse were empty? Even using the whistleblower-scale figure, 4–8% on $100 billion is $4–8 billion a year before new tithing, before real estate.

COVID is the closest thing we have had to that famine. A real global shock. Members lost work. People died. In February 2021 Latter-day Saint Charities announced a $20 million grant to UNICEF for COVAX. That is a real gift, and it is also a rounding error next to the portfolio. Later official “Caring for Those in Need” reports are much larger — $906 million in 2021, if you take their numbers — and those figures mix humanitarian projects with a lot of other welfare and in-kind work. Even then it is not at the scale of the investment return, and it is not a drawdown of Ensign Peak. They were still adding to the pile. If Joseph-in-Egypt is the reason you sit on that kind of wealth, COVID was the test. They did not part with a significant portion of it. What exactly has to happen before they do?

Stocks are also a bad place to hide from a real catastrophe. Recessions hit the portfolio and the members at the same time. An EMP, a dead grid, a worthless dollar — digital equities do not feed anyone. Elder Bednar’s line that the church doesn’t need the money, the members need the blessing, is doing a lot of work if the blessing is paid for by people who cannot make rent.

Mark 12: the poor widow puts in two mites. She gave more than the rich. That story gets used to tell people who cannot afford it to give anyway.

Watch the next beat. They leave. The disciples admire the temple. Jesus: not one stone on another.

One reading (Addison Wright, 1982) takes the widow as lament, not praise — she emptied herself into an institution that would spend it on buildings that would not last. Other people still read it as commendation. I am not going to pretend the scholars all agree. I will say the church should stop using that story as a fundraising tool while it sits on a reserve like this.

I was raised in this church. I believed in tithing. I paid it. For a long time I did not question 10% of gross, paid first. It was just what you did.

What changed was looking at the history instead of the lesson manual.

The verse they use is from a storehouse crisis in Persian-period Judah, in a book that starts by rebuking priests who despised the altar. The law they claim to follow is D&C 119, “a standing law forever,” and it was changed in practice without anyone standing up and saying it had been changed. The big jump is already in the Twelve’s 1844 letter: all property, then income. Snow popularizes it. The 1970 letter says interest means income and also says you decide what you owe. Culture and the temple recommend finish the job.

The people this hurts most are the people the older rules were trying not to hurt.

2 Nephi 28:13: they rob the poor because of their fine sanctuaries. I did not write that verse. I think the meetinghouses are mostly fine. You do not actually need a building to worship God, but I am not going to die on that hill. The temples are the harder case. We take from people who struggle, we build more and more elaborate houses, and we call temple attendance “service” in the same lessons where we talk about succoring the poor. I used to like the quiet. I am less sure the dead need the ordinance this year more than someone living needs a meal. If the work is for the millennium anyway, the opportunity cost right now is real.

I do not think giving is wrong. Voluntary, proportional, aimed at the poor and at keeping a community standing — that is a good thing. The old instinct was: if you have nothing extra, you are not tithed. If you have abundance, you give. The storehouse fills and empties. Joseph F. Smith in 1907 hoped for a day when they would not have to ask for extra donations, because the tithes already in the storehouse would cover what the church needed. That is not “tithing goes away.” It is “the storehouse is finally full.” If that day was visible in 1907, it should have arrived by now.

What we have now is inverted. The people with the least pay the highest share of what they live on. The people with the most have the most room to define “income.” The storehouse is not emptied. When someone needs help they are still told to tithe first, including on money the church might give them back.

What I would want:

Tell members what 119 says, what Partridge said it meant, and how we got to income. Let people decide with the actual history in front of them.

If a family needs everything they earn, they are not tithed. Hyde already said it. That should be the rule, not a whisper.

Open the books. Where does it go. What actually reaches people in need.

Decentralize. Bishops and stake presidents know their people. Let most of it stay local. Surplus can move up. Salt Lake should be last in line, not first. I would give to my ward. I will not keep feeding a fund I cannot see.

The church described in D&C 119 asked for what people could spare after their families were cared for. That is worth recovering. This is not that.

Citations organized by section. Scripture links go to the Church’s scripture library (LDS edition of the King James Version, plus Restoration scripture). Links below were checked; paywalled or CHL-only items are marked in Notes.

Checked online and linked above unless marked paywalled or CHL.

Paywalled or bibliographic only: Hill (Anchor Yale Malachi); Smith (WBC Micah–Malachi); Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible?; Neusner, The Mishnah; Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief; Hudnut-Beumler (2007); Croteau 2011 (the Four Views volume; the related dissertation is free); handbook editions 1913–1968 (physical/CHL copies; the 1960 / gross 1963 / 1968 sequence is quoted in the Sunstone and BCC links above); Edward Partridge to Whitney, 24 July 1838 (quoted in the JSP D&C 119 historical introduction; original at CHL).