My patriarchal blessing tells me I will pay tithing “with the idea and concept that it is the Lord’s funds and I am returning to him that which is his,” and that I will see blessings “both physically and spiritually.” For a long time that line didn’t comfort me—it pressured me. Tithing became one of the hardest laws for me to follow, not because I didn’t want to be generous, but because I couldn’t make the logic cohere.

When I was a believing Mormon, I tried to make sense of commandments through something like a natural-law lens: real causes lead to real effects. Some commandments seem to have mechanisms you can at least imagine: patterns that tend to reduce harm or increase stability (even if they don’t work the same way for everyone). Tithing is different. In modern LDS practice, it’s often taught as an absolute: pay ten percent first, and the blessings will come. That framing makes it hard to evaluate what is actually being produced—and who is being helped. How can you quantify what kind of blessing you received from paying tithing? We can look at what the church does with the money they bring in from tithing. Even then we can’t really do that because they are not open and transparent with their finances. We can rely somewhat on what the church says and organizations like the widows mite.

This chapter is my attempt to make tithing legible again by asking three questions: What did “tithing” originally mean? How did the definition shift over time? And what does the modern practice do to real families living in a high-cost, compounding-interest world?

Let’s start at the beginning. This is according to the more orthodox version where we presuppose the bible is the word of God as long as it was translated correctly.

This is the basic history of tithing throughout the Old Testament. I am not concerned for the sake of my argument about the historicity or claims that these either did or did not happen in the way they are outlined in the texts. I am just interested in presenting the common LDS belief on tithing. This would include the Old Testament as long as it was translated correctly. This is what we have to work with from this belief system.

There is an interesting Joseph Smith translation change in discussing the Abraham and Melchizedek story. I do want to look at this a little closer. In Gen 14:18-20 we read in the King James bible.

18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:

20 And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.

And in the JST Gen 14:37-40. This is the section that corresponds with the same passage.

37 And he lifted up his voice, and he blessed Abram, being the high priest, and the keeper of the storehouse of God;

38 Him whom God had appointed to receive tithes for the poor.

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.

40 And it came to pass, that God blessed Abram, and gave unto him riches, and honor, and lands for an everlasting possession; according to the covenant which he had made, and according to the blessing wherewith Melchizedek had blessed him.

There are several interesting things in the Joseph Smith Translation. One, Melchizedek is not only King of Salem, and a priest, but now is the high priest. He is also the keeper of the storehouse. The storehouse is where the Israelites take their later tithings. He is also appointed to be the one who receives the tithes for the poor. Why is this specifically denoted here? I don’t really know. Later Israelites were commanded that every 3rd year was to be a tithing year for the widows and the poor. It doesn’t appear to me to be a distinct and separate tithe however. The same tithe comes in, but it is used in those years to feed the poor.

The next is that we get verse 39 where it says Abram paid Melchizedek tithes of all he had, of all his riches which he possessed, which God gave him more than which he had need. this seems to imply that Abram paid his tithing on the surplus he had. I also believe this fits with the original verse 20 from the King James where it says he gave him tithes of all, but in context of the verse itself a tithe of all is the spoils of war he received from his fallen enemies that God had delivered into his hand.

So in other words we could see that the tithing here was God giving Abram more than what he needed and expecting a tithe on the increase that God had given him. This will come up again later when discussing early LDS implementations of Tithing. For now we can move on.

After this we don’t see tithing much until God formalizes the practice through the law of Moses. At it’s core level in the Mosaic Law, tithing was primarily an agricultural system tied to the land. Israelites gave a tenth of their produce (grain, wine, oil) and livestock increase as something “holy to the Lord.” According to Numbers, this tithe was given to the Levites, who had no land inheritance, and the Levites in turn gave a tenth of what they received to the priests. This functioned as a structured support system for the religious class rather than a general monetary tax.

Deuteronomy adds that tithing also had a worship and social dimension: in many years, the people brought their tithe to the central sanctuary and ate it there in a sacred meal before God, including the Levites. Every third year, however, the tithe was stored locally and distributed to the Levites, foreigners, orphans, and widows. So in practice, tithing under the Law combined three purposes: sustaining temple workers, participating in covenant worship, and providing for the poor.

Those three things seem to be the basis for the law of tithing. If we pay tithing we help sustain the temple workers. The priests and the Levites. Because this law was agricultural in nature it allowed for some covenant worship as well where sacred meals would be eaten and blessed. We could transfer those ideas over to modern day where we could place both of those in a single category of running the church. That may include paying for everything needed to keep the church running on a day to day basis. That include temples and local chapels. Providing for the poor transfers directly over to modern day. I see those two items being the reason for tithing.

I always believed in a more natural explanation of things anyway and those two things line up perfectly. I pay money to the church and the church can use it as it sees fit to run it’s organization. What i have a problem with is the idea that if we pay our tithing we will be financially blessed as well. There is no rhyme or reason to why or how that will happen.

In Malachi we get the famous verse

10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

This quote is often used as a simple prosperity proof-text: pay tithing and you’ll be blessed. But Malachi is doing something more specific than that, and the “storehouse” language matters. Rather than extracting a formula, I want to ask a narrower question: who is being rebuked, and what kind of failure is the prophet addressing?

Context (brief): Malachi is usually dated to the post-exilic period, near Ezra/Nehemiah. The book repeatedly disputes worship, offerings, and priestly faithfulness.

Interpretation vs fact: I can’t prove motives from a text, and I’m not claiming Malachi only blames leaders. What I can observe from the text is that Malachi repeatedly addresses priestly failure (“O ye priests…”, “covenant with Levi,” purification of the “sons of Levi”). My interpretation is that this priestly emphasis should shape how we read the later “robbed me in tithes and offerings” language.

Safer thesis (what I’m claiming): Malachi’s rebuke lands on the covenant community, but it repeatedly spotlights priestly misadministration. That makes “bring the full tithe into the storehouse” sound less like a timeless prosperity formula and more like a trust-and-administration problem: the storehouse exists so that the system sustains worship and protects the vulnerable.

"Malachi" translates to "my messenger" or “my Angel” in Hebrew. There is debate among scholars about whether Malachi is a proper name or a title reflecting his prophetic role.

The beginning of Malachi start out with

1 The burden of the word of the Lord to Israel by Malachi.

2 I have loved you, saith the Lord. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the Lord: yet I loved Jacob,

3 And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.

4 Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the Lord of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the Lord hath indignation for ever.

The people of Israel must not feel that Yahweh loves them anymore. They also aren’t honoring him anymore. At this time the people would have only recently been back in the land of Israel after the exile into Babylon. Verse 7-8

7 Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar; and ye say, Wherein have we polluted thee? In that ye say, The table of the Lord is contemptible.

8 And if ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? and if ye offer the lame and sick, is it not evil? offer it now unto thy governor; will he be pleased with thee, or accept thy person? saith the Lord of hosts.

They are not offering proper sacrifices anymore. Who accepts and offers the sacrifices? it is the Levite priests. They are accepting these offering into the Lord and they should know they are not acceptable. Notice also the similarities between the end of verse 6 and Malachi 3:8

O priests, that despise my name. And ye say, wherein have we despised they name?  ****Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar…. Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.

we will also want to keep this verse in mind as well.

14 But cursed be the deceiver, which hath in his flock a male, and voweth, and sacrificeth unto the Lord a corrupt thing: for I am a great King, saith the Lord of hosts, and my name is dreadful among the heathen.

This I believe should be interpreted for reasons given later that the priests were the ones keeping the male/pleasant offering to the lord for themselves.

We move on into chapter 2 where we also see in verse 1

And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you.

Important to pay attention to who the commandment(s) are for. In this case remember the priests/levites.

verse 4 as well

And ye shall know that I have sent this commandment unto you, that my covenant might be with Levi, saith the Lord of hosts.

We also have the Lord saying the priest have corrupted the covenant of Levi and only kept a partial law. vs 8,9.

8 But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the Lord of hosts.

9 Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according as ye have not kept my ways, but have been partial in the law.

I’ll touch on later, but we will also need to understand the commandment and how did they depart from it. It says they kept the law partially.

verse 17 is also interesting and has the same language as above

17 Ye have wearied the Lord with your words. Yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied him? When ye say, Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the Lord, and he delighteth in them; or, Where is the God of judgment?

who is the one that would say ‘Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the Lord’. It would be the priests that would be saying this. The priests are the ones deceiving and lying to the people.

Chapter 3 talks about Yahweh sending a messenger to prepare a way for him. When Yahweh comes he will again go to the temple and purify the sons of Levi. Again specifically talking about the priest. He isn’t coming to purify the whole house of Israel. Just the sons of Levi.

Let’s keep going and look at verse 7 Immediately preceding the verses on Tithing.

7 ¶ Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept them. Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the Lord of hosts. But ye said, Wherein shall we return?

So who is ye in this context? The safest answer is “the people being addressed in the disputation,” which can include both leaders and laity. My point is narrower: because Malachi repeatedly names priests/Levites and their administrative role, it is plausible (and meaningful) to hear Malachi 3’s tithing rebuke as implicating those who manage worship and offerings at least as much as those who bring them.

Even here we see Malachi has been acting as the voice of the Lord and rebuking the priests. The priests were not offering sacrifice or administering the ordinances correctly. They were speaking falsely. Saying evil was good. Leading the people astray and not following the Lord.

Malachi is primarily a book rebuking the priests. Accusing them of leading the people of Israel astray. We could look at other organizations like the FLDS church for instance. Who do we blame for corrupting and leading the people astray in that organization? Do we blame all the members equally? No we place the primary blame on the leaders. Especially in that case Warren Jeffs. If the leaders of a group of people teach wrong principles and ordinances we don’t judge the members as harshly as the leaders.

This appears to me to be a similar situation. The priests are leading the people astray and are the main culprit. While each of us individually have our own agency and make choices. The followers don’t share the same guilt or responsibility as their leaders. This should be especially true in more religious contexts where we believe things like ‘follow the prophet.’ If you were living in the time of Malachi and all your church leaders were telling you the wrong thing what should you do? At that time it would be especially hard to read the scriptures for yourself. Why would God blame the people over their ecclesiastical leaders?

Beyond that, it’s plausible that Malachi is reacting to the same kind of post-exilic problems Nehemiah describes. I don’t need to claim direct dependence to make my point. Nehemiah 13:4–13 is a concrete example of a “storehouse failure mode”: priestly control of the storehouse can be corrupted, and when it is, the Levites (and the poor-relief mechanisms tied to them) are the ones who get squeezed.

I’m using Nehemiah here as analogy, not proof: it shows how easily a system intended for worship and welfare can become a mechanism of extraction if leaders mismanage it.

In verse 10 it says the Levites were fled to their fields because they would have needed to care for their families well being. The institution was no longer doing that. The Levites could not attend to their temple and other church duties because they needed to be concerned with food.

I think Malachi is articulating a similar type of institutional failure. He may be referring to the exact events described in Nehemiah, or he may be reacting to the same kind of pattern. Either way, while blame can fall on the whole covenant community, Malachi’s repeated focus on priests suggests that leader-administered failures are not incidental to the story.

With that in mind I think Malachi hits much different when we read Malachi 3:8-10

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

9 Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation.

10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

There is still a hint that the whole nation has robbed God, and still a command to bring all the tithes to the storehouse, but if we look at Nehamiah the storehouse was empty because it was being literally robbed. The people needed to replenish the storehouse again. The people may also be partially to blame here for letting this happen. They maybe should have known better than to live and let live. They allowed the priest Eliashib to rob God.

one plausible moral of Malachi’s tithing rebuke is that religious giving requires institutional integrity. A “storehouse” is not just a spiritual metaphor—it’s a trust mechanism. When leaders can’t be trusted with offerings, the whole system becomes morally unstable.

That’s the lens I carry forward when I look at modern tithing: what is the money for, how is it handled, and who bears the cost when the institution refuses transparency?

Before I critique anything, I want to steelman the faithful view. Many believers experience tithing as spiritually formative: it forces prioritization, reduces consumerism, and acts as a repeated “surrender” of control. Even if there’s no obvious economic mechanism, they see it as a covenant practice that trains trust and generosity.

In practice if God is there and demands 10% of ones income and he says he will bless you

My concern isn’t that people give. It’s what happens when that spiritual logic gets attached to a fixed percentage demanded from people who have no surplus.

One instance is in Luke 18: Jesus contrasts a Pharisee who lists his righteous practices with a publican who asks for mercy. The Pharisee says:

I fast twice in a week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

The point of the parable is humility—not tithing math. But the line is still suggestive: the Pharisee frames his virtue in terms of strict, expansive observance. This matches what we see elsewhere: Jesus criticizes religious leaders for meticulous rule-keeping while neglecting the core moral intent.

If you want to get more precise than the English, Luke 18:12 reads ἀποδεκατῶ πάντα ὅσα κτῶμαι (“I tithe all that I acquire / get / possess”). Two helpful quick references:

Adam Clarke (paraphrasing the linguistic point) notes that the verb can carry an “acquire” sense in the present: “As fast as I gain any thing, I give the tenth part of it…” (Clarke, on Luke 18:12).

It’s important to also note one other instance where this comes into play. In Mathew and Luke we also see an instance where Jesus is criticizing the Pharisees for their tithing practice. Matthew 23:23

Both explicitly say the Pharisees tithe tiny herbs—an image of overextension. The critique is not “tithing is evil,” but “you can obey a rule so aggressively that you miss what the rule was for.”

Jesus is, in my opinion, doing a few things, but the heart of the issue is the purpose or intent behind the law. We should follow the law, but do it with Judgment, mercy, and faith. The Pharisees are doing these things just do do them. They ignore the reason for the law.

I’m intentionally not going to press the “uppermost seats” line into a one-to-one modern analogy here. The underlying warning is strong enough without the easy-to-dismiss comparison: religious systems can become status-affirming while claiming to be selfless.

Next is the widow’s mite (Luke 21; Mark 12). Jesus observes a poor widow give two small coins and says she gave more than the rich because she gave “all her living.” This story is frequently used to motivate giving from people who can’t afford it.

But look at what follows immediately: Jesus leaves and his disciples admire the great temple buildings. His response:

"Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."

Some readers (including some scholars) take this as not only praise but lament: a poor woman has given everything to a temple system that will soon be judged and destroyed. I can’t claim that reading as certain, but the immediate narrative context makes it hard to read the story as a simple “therefore, pressure the poor to give more.”

If you want one scholarly citation that argues from placement/context (not just vibes), see “Copper Coins, Catchwords, and Contextual Cues: The Climactic Placement of the Widow’s Mites (Mark 12:41–44)” (Tyndale Bulletin): https://tyndalebulletin.org/article/72643

Even if you read it as praise, it’s praise of her heart—not a blanket endorsement of the system that received her money.

This is where the story collides with modern practice for me. When a struggling family gives ten percent and then can’t breathe—can’t build any buffer, can’t handle shocks, can’t move toward stability—I don’t see a clean moral victory. I see the same tragic shape as the widow: giving that is morally impressive being captured by a system that can absorb it without feeling it.

And importantly: the widow’s gift isn’t “tithing” in the Mosaic sense. It’s a donation into the temple economy. That distinction matters because it prevents us from treating this story as a universal endorsement of a fixed-percentage requirement.

In the early days of the church they followed the law of consecration and created the united order. This is seen as a higher law above tithing and much like the law of Moses was given to ancient Israelites because they could not handle the higher law the lower law was given. In 1838 after the collapse of the Kirtland Safety Society and failure of the United Order they saints needed a new law. Thus comes the law of tithing again in the form of revelation given to Joseph Smith in D&C 119.

Primary text: D&C 119 is canon, but if you want a stable historical document reference, the Joseph Smith Papers hosts the July 8, 1838 revelation text and context: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-8-july-1838-c-dc-119/1

Before this law was given however the church leaders discussed what should be done. In December of 1837 a committee of church leaders proposed that every household should be asked to donate a certain percentage of their net worth depending on the churches needs at the time. The initial proposal was a 2 percent tithing. It also outlined that widows generally and all other families not worth over 75 dollars would not be required to tithe and still remain in good standing with the church. It also makes sure to imply net worth as taking an inventory of what a man is worth after deducting his honest debts. They also mention that a ‘percentage on what a man is worth, is a more equal mode of raising funds than the tithing of what a man raises or his income from year to year.’ These items I think are important in this timeline. Primary trail to verify/quote precisely: Joseph Smith Papers, Minute Book 2 entry: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/minute-book-2/89

On July 8th of 1838 we see the revelation of D&C 119 happen. This is also the same day a payment was due on debt to Joseph Smith’s attorneys. Perhaps just a coincidence, but necessity is the mother of invention.

In this revelation we see the saints are required to give all of their surplus property. It is to be put into the hands of the bishop. It is to be used to build the Lords house, the laying of the foundation of Zion, the priesthood, and all debts of the church.

After the initial giving of all surplus property the members will be tithed ‘one-tenth of all their interest annually’.

How was this done in the early church? According to Bishop Partridge who was there during the revelation said in a letter to Bishop Whitney “the saints are required to give all their surplus property into the hands of the bishop of Zion, and after this first tithing they are to pay annually one tenth of all their interest. that is 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.” This summary/quote is referenced in the Joseph Smith Papers historical introduction for D&C 119: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-8-july-1838-c-dc-119/1#historical-intro

If we look at this we seem to need to understand the term ‘interest’ a little more. From what the current understanding and teaching of the church is today we see that ‘interest means income’. Originally however that’s not what it meant. Clearly Bishop Partridge understood it to mean interest on what a man would earn, or as seen in the 1838 webster dictionary ‘Premium paid for the use of money; the profit per cent derived from money lent, or property used by another person, or from debts remaining unpaid.’

Steven C. Harper also describes this understanding as the saints would pay annually 10% of what they ‘would earn in interest if they invested their net worth for a year.’

Based on this idea of the tithing I actually think this is a good idea for a church. It doesn’t last long however. I am also not sure if this is exactly how it was implemented during the later periods like Nauvoo. This revelation was given right after everything is collapsing and the move to Missouri is taking place shortly. Then we have the Mormon Missouri war and subsequent incarceration of Joseph. Then Moving to Nauvoo and settling there. It would appear as if this original intent from Bishop Partridge was not implemented. It does seem as if in Nauvoo began to be more broadly understood as increase/gain. They also began accepting in kind dentations like agriculture and manufactured goods. They also used Labor tithing where the members could work 1 out of every 10 days on something like the temple. Leaders also emphasized that it should be given from what one could reasonably spare after meeting needs.

In 1844 we see a letter from the Twelve go out to the members. Inside the letter we see that every member should ‘immediately tithe himself or herself, a tenth of all their property and money and pay it into the hands of the twelve;’ This is done for the ‘building of the temple for the support of the priesthood according to the scriptures.’ Then after they are to ‘continue to pay in a tenth of their income from that time forth.’ https://archive.org/details/HistoryOfTheChurchhcVolumes1-7original1902EditionPdf/page/n1841/mode/1up?q=%22proceed+immediately+to+tithe+himself%22. This seems to be where the first time we see income used. It is also a rough duplicate of D&C 119, where they are tithed on all their property instead of giving their surplus away. They are also now paying a tithing based specifically on income instead of interest or surplus or gain etc…

We then have in Jan 11 1845 a note in John Taylor Journal that says ‘it is the duty of all saints to tithe themselves one tenth of all they possess when they enter into the new and everlasting covenant; and then one tenth of their interest, or income yearly afterwards.’ This is also contradictory of the original where they were to give all their surplus away. Now it is taken to mean a tithing of all they possess at that moment. It also uses the term interest as well, but in conjunction with income. https://website-files-bucket.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/articles/article_pdfs/The_John_Taylor_Nauvoo_Journal.pdf

In January 1847 in the Millennial Star we see Orson Hyde outline tithing again with a few caveats. He uses the same language as the letter from the twelve and John Taylor about an initial tithing on all possessions and then an annual tithing on all annual increases ever after. Then He does say that if a man can only earn enough to ‘support himself and family he is not tithed at all’. ‘The Poor that have not this world’s goods to spare, but serve and honour God… shall have a celestial Crown…But the rich.’ and those who have goods to ‘spare without injury to themselves,’ or family ‘ can never obtain a celestial crown unless they pay their tithing. They are not excluded, neither disfellowshipped from the church if they do not do it.’.

There is a lot in there. I do think much of this was carried over from prior years. What matters for my argument is this: in multiple early statements and implementations, leaders explicitly framed tithing as inapplicable (or not binding in the same way) for those without surplus—widows and the poor were frequently treated as exceptions or as beneficiaries rather than primary payers. Even when leaders used strong rhetoric to pressure payment, nonpayment was not always treated as automatic exclusion.

Lorenzo Snow in 1899 gave a conference talk where he mentions tithing https://archive.org/details/conferencereport1899sa. Here he outlines the law of tithing as found in D&C 119. He goes back to the initial tithing of the surplus property. He then uses the terms interest and later defines that as ‘one tenth of their income.’

The church handbooks from that time on all use the terms income as well. There are different minor changes as well throughout them. Some may include the language of interest with income in braces next to them. Sometimes the term increase is also used as well.

Things begin to change much more once we get to the 1963 handbook of instructions. Here it defines a tithe as ‘A tithe is one-tenth of a wage earners gross income; a tithe is a one-tenth of a professional man’s income after deducting standard business expenses; a tithe is on-tenth of a farmer’s income after deducting standard business operating expenses. A farmer should not include as standard business the produce which is used to sustain his family. A tithe is one-tenth of an individuals interest. ‘

This is the first time a tithe is specifically mentioned as gross income. There is a lot of confusion surrounding what a tithing is. This particular version only lasted 5 years before it was replaced again in 1968 with a small note about what tithing is. ‘Church members should pay one-tenth of their interest (income) annually into the tithing funds of the church.’

We also begin to lose exclusion for the poor and widows around this time. These people were always excluded before.

in 1970 The first presidency issues this letter presumably because of recent confusion surrounding what should be paid in a tithing. Here they say the ‘simplest statement we know of is the statement of the Lord himself, namely, that the members of the Church should pay "one tenth of their interest annually" which is understood to mean "income." No one is justified in making any other statement than this. We feel that every member of the Church is entitled to make his own decision as to what he thinks he owes the Lord and to make payment accordingly. Sincerely your brethren,’ One accessible reproduction of that letter appears in the Ensign “I Have a Question” (April 1974): https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1974/04/i-have-a-question/what-figure-should-we-base-our-tithing-on?lang=eng

This doesn’t seem to help matters in my opinion. Based on the history and what different people have said about tithing it seems like something the brethren could at least clarify.

As a believing member I never had a strong opposition to paying my tithing based on more of a net salary. It was easier to calculate for me to just look at bank statements that came in and pay that. My wife and others I know generally wanted to pay off of their gross. That’s a huge difference to people. Not only that, but I also believe that members who have little or are just starting out should not pay tithing at all.

After I studied this history, I found myself surprisingly sympathetic to the logic behind some early LDS framings—especially the Bishop Partridge “interest on net worth” explanation. Politically, I don’t like wealth taxes. Spiritually, though, I can see the moral point: if Christianity is serious about caring for the poor and treating surplus as morally charged, then a giving system should scale with real surplus. To make the tradeoffs visible (and checkable), here are three scenarios. This is not a perfect economic model; it’s an auditable illustration.

Definition: each year, tithing is \(10\\% \\times (6\\% \\times \\text{net worth})\).

Definition: tithing is \(10\\%\\) of what you can actually save.

Definition: tithing is \(10\\%\\) of annual take-home.

This is just one scenario with some basic numbers. Here is the problem for me. I think about anything different would be better for the low income members of the church. The surplus scenario could be tweaked. A lot of the expenses there could be seen worthy of counting as part of your increase. Maybe you go through your expenses and calculate what you think is appropriate and calculate that every meal is 20$ for your family. Then when you eat at a restaurant for 50$ you know to pay tithing on the remaining 30$. And so on. That could be brought down to something a family can feel comfortable doing.

Instead of 66,000 total expenses we put in 45,000 as needed expenses. That would change the amount of tithing being paid each month to 3500. That would still be better than the churches current approach.

The thing I like about the Partridge method is that it incentives members to not accrue a lot of wealth. It’s also not so damning that you can’t accumulate a good amount of wealth and not break you. If you are someone like Elon Musk who has 700 Billion net worth. The Partridge approach would greatly impact him. His annual salary is very low compared to his total net worth. As far as I understand Elon doesn’t receive a traditional salary or regular income, but is offered things like stock incentives. He would be able to track how much those assets are worth at the time he receives them. Then calculate how much those would be worth in order to pay tithing on them.

According to the Partridge method though on tithing on 700 Billion with a 6% interest understood would be 4.2 Billion. He would pay that every year that he is worth 700 Billion.

Even someone who has a million dollar net worth would still not pay as much in tithing as someone who has a salary of 80,000. You would need to have 1.33 Million to reach the same level assuming a 6% interest rate.

The current tithing system has been primed to explode the wealth of the church. It’s done this at the expense of it’s members. Ever since we have gotten of the Gold standard the US has inflated is currency to a horrid degree. Whether you agree or not with the current monetary system is not really the point here, but to highlight the issue that in this environment cash is trash. Everyone wants assets. This brings up the price of assets. If you are holding your savings in cash you will slowly lose your purchasing power every year. The mantra of many capital allocators would time in the market is better than timing the market. Time in the market is one of the best ways to accumulate wealth over time. Dollar cost average into high quality assets and let it sit.

That’s what the church has been able to do: centralize funds and keep them invested over long time horizons. Each year, tithing revenue covers operating costs, and long-run compounding does the rest. The Widow’s Mite report argues (based on its own estimates and assumptions) that the Church could sustain operations for a very long time even if donations dropped dramatically. (Widow’s Mite report: https://thewidowsmite.org/2025update/)

Meanwhile it harvest away opportunity from it’s members to invest. I know many members in my ward that don’t have any real sort of investment. Many have some form of 401k from their work. They may have some money saved away. Many do not have, or have even though about investing as any real strategy. They know they should, but why don’t they. Some were probably never going to. The church does encourage investing, but it does so only after you can afford to pay your tithing.

If you pay your tithing first however you will be working against the system. You should be investing saving early. Compounding interest has almost no impact until you get to a certain level of wealth. Then it can kickstart and move you into a new level of freedom. If you can’t start early though you will never reach that point.

Think back to the scenario where you could save or invest $14,000 a year, but instead pay $8,000 in tithing and have $6,000 left over. That’s less than what you are paying to the church. If you want to put a number on the opportunity cost, you have to declare assumptions. For example, assuming a nominal 7% annual return (purely illustrative, not a guarantee), contributing $8,000 per year for 10 years yields roughly:

Chances are the average member is not taking their leftover 6,000 and investing it all. They need an emergency fund. they need a cushion in case things go bad. Even if they do they will see a final value of the 6000 every year around 98-110k. That results in a total gain of about 38-50k. That’s the best case scenario.

Even beyond that there are massive tax implications. When the member decides to sell they will incur capital gains taxes on their increase. The church has far less incentive to sell their holding. They don’t need to sell to generate money. they can leverage their holdings in a way that the average member could not. They can avoid paying taxes a lot longer than the average member.

Likewise, contributing $14,000 per year for 10 years at the same 7% nominal illustration yields roughly:

I do think many of the ideals the church teaches can help members financially: education, frugality, delayed gratification, and community norms that discourage some forms of chaos. For many people, that package is stabilizing. But “tithing blesses you financially” is not a mechanism—it’s a claim. If anything, the most obvious mechanism runs the other direction: paying a fixed ten percent reduces the capital you have available to build stability, especially in the years when you have no buffer.

If tithing produces any natural financial benefit, it’s probably indirect: it can force budgeting discipline. But that’s a method you can achieve in many ways without requiring a fixed transfer that functions regressively.

Here are a few options that would better align with the scriptural themes (surplus, storehouse, care for the vulnerable) while preserving institutional funding:

I’m not claiming these are the only good solutions. I’m claiming the current practice is not inevitable, and it’s not obviously faithful to the ethical logic the scriptures themselves emphasize.