Are Mormons Paying Too Much Tithing? – LDS Discussions
Listen on Apple Podcasts Spotify YouTube Download MP3
About this episode
In Part Two of our history of tithing, we examine how the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has defined tithing over time –and whether the modern expectation to pay 10% of income actually matches the historical revelation given to Joseph Smith.
The 1838 revelation on tithing instructed members to give a tenth of their “surplus” property and subsequently a tenth of their “interest” annually. But what did those words mean in the 19th century? Did “interest” mean all income, or did it refer to increase or profit after expenses were paid?
We also examine the question of who gets to determine what constitutes “surplus” or “interest,” how tithing affects low-income members differently from wealthy members, and how the modern interpretation developed –particularly through the First Presidency’s 1970 letter and subsequent Church teachings.
From there, we explore the four specific purposes for which tithing was originally given, including building temples, laying the foundation of Zion, supporting the priesthood, and other charitable or religious purposes. We compare those purposes with how the Church uses tithing today and ask whether the original reasons for the law have actually been fulfilled.
The discussion also looks at teachings from Brigham Young Junior, Lorenzo Snow, David A. Bendar, Russell M. Nelson, Elder Holland, Elder Packer, Elder Becerra, and others, including the increasingly strict expectation that members pay tithing even when doing so creates financial hardship or debt.
This episodes asks a broader question about the relationship between scripture, revelation, historical context, and modern institutional policy: If the original revelation from the Lord says “surplus” and “interest,” when –and why –did that become a requirement to pay 10% of one’s entire income to the Church?
LDS Discussions examines the historical and doctrinal claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints using primary sources, historical documents, and critical analysis.
Originally published on mormonstories.org.
Transcript
Machine-generated and lightly edited. Click any timestamp to jump the audio to that moment. The audio is authoritative; please check it before quoting.
Introduction and Episode Overview
Kolby Reddish Good morning and thank you for joining me on today's episode of Mormon Stories podcast, LDS Discussions Edition. I'm your host today, Kolby Redish. And as a reminder, the LDS Discussions series is an effort where we examine Mormon Church truth claims based upon the best available evidence, and we try and approach those claims as objectively and fairly as we can. This series was started by a man named Mike of the website LDS Discussions, who has since retired from this project. We're incredibly grateful for the work he did to build the foundations for this series. Because of that, you can find dozens of LDS Discussions episodes both on Spotify and Apple podcasts, as well as the LDS discussions playlist on YouTube, because these episodes typically build upon one another.
Kolby Reddish So if you are new to the series, we strongly recommend starting at the beginning and working through them sequentially in order, especially because today we are joined by by Julia Sanders and Nemo the Mormon to finish our discussion on the history of Tithing. So this literally is a part two of an episode we did earlier, just several weeks ago. John Dehlin believes that LDS Discussions is some of the most important work that the Open Stories foundation and MORM Stories has ever done. And so we're incredibly thankful for those who support this project and keep it going with that introduction. Thank you for joining me. You too. Julia, how are you this morning?
Julia I'm great. How are you guys doing?
Kolby Reddish Well, Nemo, how are you?
Nemo I'm wonderful. Good as always.
Kolby Reddish Great. Do you folks, before we get started, do you want to remind people where they can find you, aside from. On this video?
Julia Yeah. So I'm analyzing Mormonism on YouTube, Patreon, TikTok, Instagram. Yeah.
Nemo I'm Nemo the Mormon Everywhere except for MySpace.
Julia I hear that's coming back. I don't know if that's real.
Nemo Well, if it is, I'm going to reserve my handle immediately.
Julia Right. And then. You can't say that anymore.
Nemo I can't say that anymore. But that came up in Slack the other day. Kolby blamed some increased views on my MySpace jokes. So, yeah, this will continue now.
Kolby Reddish Welcome to I'm Kolby Reddish. You can only find me on MySpace. No, I'm joking. You can find my channel. Let's disagree also here on YouTube. So I'm really excited to jump into our part two on the history of tithing. Julia, tell us what we're in store for today.
Julia Well, so this. So this is the part two of History of Tithing, although I don't know that we go. We talk about the history, but I think more of it's a discussion of are we paying too much tithing? And then tithing was given for four very specific reasons. And we're going to explore if those reasons have been fulfilled or what those look like. And so, yes, there are some historical sources that we're talking about, but I think mostly we're launching into a discussion of are we paying too much?
The Original Tithing Revelation and Its Language
Kolby Reddish Great.
Guest Yeah.
Julia Yeah. So we're gonna just get started. The. I just want to go over again the language of the tithing revelation. Kolby, would you read this?
Kolby Reddish I would. So this was given on 8th July in 1838. The question is asked how much the servants, the servants of God should be required to pay as a tithing. And the answer is, verily, thus saith the Lord, I require all their surplus property to be put into the hands of the bishop of my church of Zion for the building of mine house and for the laying the foundation of Zion and for the priesthood and for the debts of the presidency of my church. 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.
Kolby Reddish And there shall be a standing law unto them forever. For my holy priesthood, saith the Lord. Verily, I say unto you, it shall come to pass that all those who gather unto the land of Zion shall be tithe of their surplus properties and shall observe this law, or they shall not be found worthy to abide among you. And behold, I say unto you, if my people observe not this law, to keep it holy, and by this law sanctify the land of Zion unto me, that my statutes and my judgments may be kept thereon, that it may be most holy. Behold, I say unto you, it shall not be a land of Zion unto you. And this shall be an example, I think ensample, but example unto all the stakes of Zion, even so. Amen.
Julia Okay, so what can you tell us? Can you just summarize what this revelation is?
Kolby Reddish Yeah. So the way I interpret it is people, when they enter into Zion, when they enter into the church, they are required to pay all of their surplus property, and then after paying all of their surplus property, to pay one tenth of all their interest annually in their other properties.
Julia Yeah, that's what I understand.
Nemo It'll be a standing law unto them forever. So one tenth of all their interest, that's the law forever. Just want to check that. That's what that says it does. So forever means it shouldn't change, right?
Kolby Reddish Yeah, it does mean it shouldn't change. Yes, that is what the word forever means.
Guest 2 Cool.
Nemo Just want to get that clear. All right, thank you.
Julia Yeah. So, again, one of the things we talked about in our last episode was that people didn't pay tithing just with money. They paid with. With actual property, with land, with cattle, with. With whatever they had. So goods and things like that. So it wasn't just money. So that. But I think right there, it seems like they're. The language is the surplus property to help build Zion. It sounds like they actually mean land, is what I'm gathering from these.
Kolby Reddish But anyway, one of the things that's interesting to me about this is that it doesn't answer the question of who gets to determine what is your surplus property. Because. And I know you've got these definitions, so maybe we can start going through those definitions now, Julia. But it doesn't answer the question of surplus. In whose eyes? Right. Is it in your eyes or is it in the bishop's eyes?
Julia Yeah, yeah, yeah. So I took some definitions from. There's. You can go to the 18. Is this 1828 or 1829 dictionary?
Kolby Reddish 1828. Yep.
Julia Okay.
Guest Yeah.
Julia And then you can just type in a word, and then it'll show up what it meant back then because the word meanings change. And so I pulled out three definitions here, and this first one is surplus. And the first definition is overplus that which remains when use is satisfied, access beyond what is prescribed or wanted. In the United States, the surplus of wheat and rye not required for the consumption or exportation is distilled. So what. So what is beyond access beyond what is prescribed or wanted or what is wanted?
Nemo Which is very important because members may say, well, I want to hold more land. It's no longer a surplus. Right. Under that definition.
Julia Yeah, that's true.
Nemo So it's quite a flexible law.
Julia It is. And then Kolby, that brings into who gets to decide what this is. And then this next one is interest. Kolby, do you want to read some of these definitions that maybe.
Kolby Reddish Yeah. So this is the term that's actually used, Right. That they shall pay 110 of their interest annually. So you can see definite. I think the ones that are relevant here, most of us are to be most familiar with the concept of interest in definition 4, which is the idea that you're paying a premium for the use of someone else's money. Right. It goes back to time value of money concepts. Here in 1828, you can see definitions 3 and 5 really have a kind of a separate definition, which is recognizing interest is basically profit, and profit is the idea that after you've paid the expenses, it's what remains off of your revenue. So revenue is what you take in. Your expenses are what you pay to generate that revenue and your profit is what remains after. So you can see definition 5. Any surplus advantage is basically the same idea that's in definition three.
Nemo Can you imagine though if definition four was the way that this was actually intended to work and they were like, hey, look, okay, right, so you've put all your money into the bank or a lot of your money into the bank. Once the bank pays you your interest, you then need to give a tenth of that to the church.
Julia Yeah.
Nemo I think it's important to mention here though that what this, none of this means is 10% of all your money, please, before you do anything else with it. That's not what this means.
Julia Right.
Nemo We can umm. An ah, about what interest might have meant back then. Like whether it was you know, just your surplus advantage generally, like money that you essentially had going spare or whether it was private profit that you'd made through. Because a lot of people when they move into these towns, right, they set up businesses, they do work that is paid. You know, you'll have a printing shop, you'll have a greengrocer, essentially. I don't want you to call it then, but you know, you'd have people that are, that are selling wares and doing labor and being paid for it. So it could be a tenth of that profit that they make through that business. It could just be surplus advantage generally. Either way, it's not just all the money. They have 10% of that.
Julia Right.
Kolby Reddish So I'll push back on that a little bit just to say there's a little bit of ambiguity. If we look at definition two, which would be the more common use over three and five, right. That's the way that these are ranked. Share, portion, part participation and value. That could be broad enough I think to incorporate just your ownership interest in something. If you look at the end of that definition, he has an interest in a manufacturing of cotton goods. So it may be a little bit more complicated than there's.
Nemo You can give your shares. Right.
Kolby Reddish So I can at least see where someone could look at this definition, definition two and say, well, interest at least in definition two does seem to incorporate the entirety of your interest potentially. We just don't know.
Nemo Yeah, right.
Julia Right. Well then again the, the language. Another word that was used was surplus, like we said, which is above what
Nemo is wanted when it's regarded to land.
Julia Yeah, right. There's Another word that's not in the tithing revelation, but it is used often by church leaders and it's called, it's increased. And so one of the definitions for that is increment profit, interest, that which is added to the original stock. And that's the one that I pulled out that was of interest to me. So that seems to have kind of the same reflection of not all of your income, but your profit from everything. But anyway, I just wanted to have this discussion because.
Nemo But even a produce as of land, for example, that's also relevant. Maybe not progeny. That's. You know, perhaps the church isn't wanting you to tithe 1/10 of all your children, but, you know, if you're someone that the main form of your productivity is what you grow, then that's also a reasonable thing, particularly in this time to think, okay, well, then you could bring a tenth of that into the storehouse of the church. Right?
Julia Yeah, yeah, that's true. Produce. Yeah.
Nemo The second definition, particularly given the biblical sense in which sacrifices are taken from what you produce from your fields or your flocks.
Julia Yeah.
Kolby Reddish Or the fields and the flocks of the people that you've conquered, as we looked at in the scriptures the last time.
Nemo Yeah.
Kolby Reddish But yes.
Julia So this, this breakdown. So whenever I was an active member of the church, I came across this blog where I pretty sure was an active member of the church, but he just had a hard time with tithing and he had all these things that he was defining and he was trying to understand why we're paying so much. And he helped. He kind of presented this, this chart and I don't have his source because it's an old blog and I need to go and find it. But I. That was probably 2018 that I saw that. But anyway, so he was showing this where you have your business and your sales revenue.
Julia And then under, underneath the sales revenue, you have to cover your expenses, you have to pay electricity, your employees, maintenance, just everything you have to pay for. And then whatever is left over is the gain is what the company is making, as far as I understand, or the profit.
Kolby Reddish Most people are going to call that net profit.
Julia Okay. Yeah. In which to me, the words increase, surplus and interest are very similar to that, that profit word. So then if we look at it from more of a personal perspective from like this is your employment. Let's pretend you make 60,000 a year. You have to cover your expenses, you have to cover your mortgage, electricity, your vehicles, your insurance, childcare, Internet, food, everything. And then whatever is left over would be the profit or the gain or the interest surplus or increase. And so to me, what I'm wondering and what this person postulated in that blog post that I can hopefully track down is that we should be paying tithing on what? On the profit rather than on our 60,000, 60k salary. And so I just wanted to have this discussion because, like, I. I just wonder if we are paying too much tithing.
Debating Whether Members Pay Too Much
Nemo This is a common argument within the church, particularly when you read that it talks about increase. Right. And in the uk, I've certainly had this discussion before, and a common retort that many people have heard is, do you want neck blessings or gross blessings? Because there is this transactional element to the concept of tithing in that you do it and then you are blessed.
Nemo So, yeah, I think I said it in the last episode. I had a bishop tell me that this is the only commandment you can keep fully because it's mathematically calculable. So a lot of people kind of hold onto it as if I do this, then I will get blessings. So do I want to net or grope species? They'll also throw the Robin God line out there.
Nemo But I think fundamentally, if you were to look to the scripture and see increase, then there is a good argument to be made that after you have paid what you need to pay, and for some people, particularly, again, in those conversations I was talking about growing up, that was about before or after tax, not necessarily after mortgage, electricity, vehicles, insurance, childcare, et cetera. It was just like, well, before or after paying your taxes, because they're taken at source. And so there would be a discussion about whether you ever actually saw that money or not.
Julia Right.
Nemo So, you know, because yes, you technically earned it, but the government takes it straight away. So is that an increase and should you therefore pay tithing on it, etc.
Julia Yeah. Chloe, did you have anything to add?
Kolby Reddish Well, I just, I think there are good practical reasons to look at it this way. Right? Like if you make, just using the example you have on the slide here, if you make the $60,000 a. But you're paying 58,000 of those dollars a year into taxes, into your mortgage, into your vehicles, into your childcare, into your food, into your, you know, your practical necessities that you need, utilities, insurance, those things, you really don't have the additional $6,000. If we were calculating it based on the $60,000, right. You don't have $6,000 to pay in tithing. And so I think we'll get to the verse from Messiah a Little bit later.
Kolby Reddish But I think this is one reason that the book recognizes. Recognizes, I think, in line with what we're talking about here, that the giving, it doesn't even use the word tithing in that passage, but that the giving that people give to the church or to build up the kingdom of God is based on their increased surplus and interest. Because to me, that's the only way it really would make sense. Right. For people who really are having a lot of expenses. This is one of the reasons that tithing, because of it's a higher, like, proportion of your income. If you're a lower income person. This is the reason that it impacts lower income people much harder than it does people who have millions and millions of dollars.
Kolby Reddish Right. Yes, it's the same proportion. And so it seems fair from that perspective, but it's not when you're looking at it through the lens of what's your discretionary income after you pay your expenses?
Nemo That's why it would be truly fair if it were standardized, done on money after expenses paid.
Kolby Reddish Correct.
Nemo Because then it would be a true reflection. I mean, we could get into the widow's might about this. Right. Because the widow's might is not about how much money she earns before expenses. It's about how much money she has that she can give away. And she gives away more as a proportion than all the rich people who just throw away stuff that they can afford to throw away. And similarly, this would create a fair sense of sacrifice for those if we were doing it on gain, whereas it, like you said, disproportionately burdens the poor or those who have large expenses with lower salaries. That basically it's that ratio between income and expenditure that if that's high for people, then tithing is going to hit them harder because you're taking away a larger percentage of that income if you're doing it at source.
Julia Yeah, yeah. So it just seems to me that we should be paying a tenth of our profit or gain. Like a tenth of a tenth almost is how I think it would come out.
Nemo That would be the law unto us forever, according to the scripture. Yeah, that's how I would understand that. Yeah.
Julia Yeah. So there's this quote from Brigham Young Jr. In 1875 that I wanted to read. He says it says this is. Yeah. General Conference. He then spake on the subject of tithing and said that neither himself nor anyone else, either man or woman, had ever paid their tithing as it was revealed and understood by him in the Doctrine and Covenants. But however we might fall short of this and many other things. This people were the people of God, and he knew it. And God would eventually bring us up to the standard he required us to occupy. There were at least three different ways that the United Order was being tried throughout the territory.
Julia He hoped that ere long a system would be gone into that all could unite and enter upon in earnest. And so. So just at the beginning he's saying he, I don't know of anybody who's paying tithing as it was revealed. And I don't exactly know what he means. And he is talking about the United Order in some sense, but it seems like what he's meaning to me is that people are not paying it as it had been revealed.
Nemo So, like, I, yeah, I would push back on this slightly if the implication here would be that, you know, people should be paying less, not more. People are paying too much. I don't think that would ever be what he's saying here, partly because I don't think I've ever heard a church leader ever get up and say, guys, you're paying too much. Pay less. Particularly in the early days of the church when they're trying to establish Utah and things like this.
Nemo What I see here, particularly with the mention of the United Order being tried, as though the United Order isn't currently living up to what it should be that is based around the law of consecration. And so this very much reads to me like saying, hey, by my understanding of the revelation, we should be giving a lot of ourselves over to this, and people aren't giving enough and we're not fully consecrating ourselves. And there will come a time when we're lifted up to that place where we basically give everything we have over to the church and it becomes potentially very. A communist utopia.
Kolby Reddish That's the way I would understand it as well, I think the other thing I'd note on this is regardless of exactly what he means, one of the things that's very funny about this to me is he says there are at least three different ways that people are trying this, right? So there are at least three different interpretations is what I'm hearing from him on what this paying tithing means. And it's important to remember that supposedly God, who gave this revelation forever as a standing law to his people forever, is not a God of confusion. And yet they can't get something that is such a basic law correct because
Nemo he left surplus open to interpretation. He left what that means open. And so I think that in terms of the history of this Still, I think what we're seeing is church leaders desperately trying to grab control of those areas in which things are more vague or more open to interpretation and put down what the interpretations are in a way that essentially means pay us more. I think you could kind of round it up into that and say every time it's like surplus. Well, what does surplus mean? Well, I know surplus means X, Y, and Z, and that basically means pay us more.
Church Leaders on Tithing Obligations
Kolby Reddish So what you're saying is, last episode, we listened to a talk from Lyn G. Robbins called tithing a commandment even for the destitute. Or we listened to a part of this. You're saying this was the original General Conference tithing, a commandment even for the destitute.
Nemo That's what I'm saying. Yeah.
Julia So you. So you're saying that whenever he's saying we haven't been paying tithing as revealed in Doctrine and Covenants, because we just read it, you know, you give one tenth of your interest or your surplus or all your surplus property, you're thinking he's saying we are not. Because I'm confused. Because there's two different things going on. He's talking about the united order or consecration, which is give everything. And then the church kind of gives back what you need. And then the Doctrine, Covenants, tithing, revelation is just give of your interest and surplus. So what do you think He's. What does this beginning part mean, then?
Kolby Reddish He's saying that people aren't paying enough. And you can see that because when you look at the next sentence. But however, we might fall short of this and many other things. So he's saying that his understanding of what increase meant as given in that revelation must have been broader than what most people.
Julia Oh, I see.
Nemo Because otherwise he'd be using a different phraseology, be saying, however, though we may be too generous right now, I'm sure we can rein it back in, guys. Right? Which is not what he's saying.
Julia So even back then, they were interpreting interest or surplus to mean more. Okay.
Nemo Yeah. And you've got the benefit as well of continuing revelation in the Church, which allows leaders to essentially say, well, my. Because he says, as understood by him as it was revealed and understood by him in the Doctrine and Covenants. And he gets to play that. Well, how I interpret that is we should be giving more.
Julia Right. Well, then I love the three different ways. Like, because God can't be clear. I don't know. I don't know on certain things. But yeah, okay. But there's another talk that we've talked about before. This is from President or Lorenzo Snow in 2012. This is the church's manual. And I just think this is really interesting. So they published this manual in 2012 and then it says they share a quote from Snow, but they change it a little bit.
Julia So it says, I plead with you in the name of the Lord and I pray that every man, woman and child, dot, dot, dot, shall pay one tenth of their income as a tithing. But if you go to the original talk In October of 1899, the dot, dot, dot is actually I pray that every man, woman and child who has means shall pay 1/10 of their income as a tithing. So he's acknowledging here that not everyone should be paying. And the church took that out because they want. They don't. I'm assuming they don't like that piece.
Nemo I would encourage every person watching whenever they see ellipsis in a quote, just always go and see if you can find the original quote and see what's in there. Because chances are the person quoting it to you is leaving something out. Well, they are definitionally leaving something out. That's what the ellipses for. But the question is, why are they leaving it out?
Julia Well, then they do it here again, tithing is not a difficult law. I didn't pull that one out.
Nemo But then he puts if a man receives $10, his tithing is $1. If he receives 100, his tithing is 10. It's very easy to comprehend two sets of ellipsis in there. I wonder what the caveats are.
Julia Right, And I'll put the whole talk in the show notes. But yeah, it's just interesting. But anyway, the church seemingly is trying to get rid of this idea that not everyone has to pay. And then I think that reflects again on the original revelation where it says you give of your interest or your surplus. And because not everyone's going to have that because they have all these expenses,
Nemo some people live paycheck to paycheck, some people don't get that extra cash afterwards or even worse.
Kolby Reddish Right. Some people are in long term debt. Like if we use that example from the slides earlier, if you're paying $4,000 a year more than you have in tithing, like if you're paying $6,000 a year, but your expenses are $58,000 a year, after everything's said and done, you're going into debt to pay tithing you have negative.
Julia Yeah, that's wild to me. I didn't hear of that concept until one of the recent Mormon news episodes with Megan and John Dylan. They talked about how people go into debt. They have to take out credit cards to pay their tithing. And I just think that's wild to
Nemo me that, well, as we'll see later, people are willing to sell important household assets in order to pay their tithing bill. Like I. What I object to here, generally speaking, is the idea that tithing comes as this bill from the IRS of here's what you owe us. It's like tithing settlement can often feel like, well, here's what you've paid. Is that enough?
Nemo The fact that it even comes back to you as a sort of receipt, it's like that thing of we know how much you ought to have paid because we know what you earn. So it's a question of, do you think you've paid us enough? And they can't enforce it the way the IRS do, but they can threaten you with eternal damnation because there's precedent to do that.
Nemo See, the fire insurance talk, that I'm sure we'll cover. So, yeah, that's what bothers me about this, is it's taking what's meant to be a law of sacrifice and turning it into this weird debt, debtor obligation relationship. But again, we'll hear later that church leaders do talk about it as a debt.
Julia Yeah, so I have that one. I don't think I pulled the one from Nelson where he says that this is basically fire insurance. I don't think I. I don't think I added that one. But speaking of that, I have sprinkled in some talks about tithing throughout this discussion. And so this one here is from Elder Bednar. This is a fire site that he gave in 2016. And so. And he has an interpreter there, so he has to pause. And.
Nemo And this is. This is the same Fireside, I believe, where he said there's no gay members of the church.
Guest 2 Yeah.
Julia No homosexuals. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's the same one. Yeah. All right,
▶ Video Clip 1Video Clip 1 now, I want to say this in terms that I hope won't be scary, but they're true. If after having entered into the covenant, we don't abide by the conditions of the covenant.
Video Clip 1 For example, if you and I don't
Video Clip 1 pay our tithing,
Video Clip 1 do we have the option not to pay our tithing?
Video Clip 1 It's breaking a covenant. It is not the exercise of agency anymore,
Video Clip 1 because what happened to our individual agency, it was enlarged.
Video Clip 1 Now it's more important to represent him.
Video Clip 1 Is this making sense?
Kolby Reddish No, it's not making sense. I could Talk. I could literally talk about that clip for half an hour with how revealing it is to the way that Elder Bednar's brain thinks behind that Lego hair. It just looks like it's so perfect. It just looks like Lego hair to me. I don't know any other way to describe it. The idea that your agency is expanded because you have less ability to choose is so Orwellian. I mean, it literally is Orwellian. He's saying, we've expanded your agency and you can't make that choice anymore.
Nemo We've increased your freedom by reducing your choices.
Kolby Reddish That's right. Freedom is slavery.
Nemo Yeah, exactly.
Julia Yeah, yeah, yeah. This also just juxtaposing this next to who has means. Like, you don't have agency to pay tithing anymore. But then we just heard from the prophet Lorenzo Snow saying that you only have to pay if you have means. But also the rev. The revelation itself says if you have an interest or surplus, then you pay a tenth of that. And so what I understand that is what is left over. That's what surplus means. And then. And then interest is similar. Like, I don't. It doesn't.
Kolby Reddish I thought the entire reason we had agency was like, obviously, he's right. The whole concept in universe, in the Mormon universe of agency is that you should use it to choose good things. Right? That you should use it to choose the right. But what it also stands for is that you have the right to choose even if you choose the wrong things. And we. This is. This is something that's different about Mormonism relative to other forms of Christianity. We believe in a fortunate fall, meaning that when Adam and Eve took of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden, that that was actually a good thing.
Kolby Reddish Most conventional Christians think that was not a good thing, that it was something that changed, you know, humanity's eternal destiny. Mormons don't believe that. We believe that that was a good thing, that that exercise of agency was a good thing, and that it brought good things into the world. So it's so weird to have been raised in a system that taught me to believe in people's right to choose so strongly, and then to hear someone who leads that system say, actually, agency means you don't have a right to choose. That's just so wild to me, how they've reversed course.
Nemo It's like you get to. You have the freedom to choose to enter into the binding contract, and then once you're in that binding contract, you are bound, and you don't get to choose to disobey it or leave it.
Kolby Reddish Right. And let's talk about that binding contract for a second. Most people who are members of the church enter into this binding eternal contract that they must fulfill the conditions of forever at the age of 8 years old, without disclosure of any of the relevant terms of that contract.
Kolby Reddish It's like the idea that you should view it as a contract like even the legal, the US legal system, which I cite to, as I cite to it. Because if humans can come up with a better system of ethics, morality and justice than an eternal God, that's probably a suggestion that the system that's being offered that's worse, that's being claimed to come from the eternal God, probably didn't come from the eternal God. And what I mean is you can't be bound to a contract as a child. You can't be bound to a contract even if you're a 17 year old. In most instances, you can't be bound to a contract, let alone an 8 year old child who hasn't been given all the material terms of that covenant slash contract. So looking at it that way, I think is absurd.
Nemo But then what's also really interesting is if you go to that talk by, or that fireside given by Bednar where he grabs that child. Oh yeah, you know, talks about how when the child takes steps beyond the line and does things wrong, then he's in Satan's grasp and Satan bound him up. What is he describing here other than being bound up and unable to make choices? And that's true, you've lost your agency. See, he talks about sin as this event horizon over which once you pass, you lose your agency. But also obedience to covenants is the same event horizon. You lose your agency that way as well. So there's a lose lose scenario for Elder Bednar. Whether you sin or whether you keep your covenants, either way you're an automaton with no choice anymore. It's crazy that that is that man's
Julia worldview, but I mean, but he would say that your agency has increased, right? Isn't that kind of what he said?
Nemo So even though you choose hasn't. And that's what's really interesting there, right?
Julia Yeah. And for a point of reference, the fireside that you're talking about, I think he bear hugged a child.
Nemo He was like confiding, grabbed a child from behind. This kid was crying. He showed a, a disturbing lack of empathy for the fact the child was crying.
Julia Was he crying? He just looked super uncomfortable.
Nemo He was absolutely.
Guest 2 He was.
Nemo Oh my gosh. Yeah.
Kolby Reddish The people that looked the most uncomfortable
Nemo were the other adults in the room, but who did nothing.
Kolby Reddish Oh, my God, I was gonna say. And it's so astounding to me that there's an entire room full of other adults that do nothing about a grown man holding a young child against his will. Like, that is so weird.
Julia Well, I think that goes along with it. I think that goes along with a study is if a man with a lab coat tells you to do something, they're more likely to do it. And this man is an apostle of the Lord, so, like, they're all just
Nemo basking in the profound spiritual lesson that he's teaching this child. And this child's tears clearly come from the spirit, you know, rather than acknowledging that, you know, this kid's scared because he's in front of a group of people, and then this man's like, restraining him from a position of authority. It's a wonder when things like that happen and people don't do anything. It's a wonder then the church has issues with abuse more broadly. Because while Bednar may not have had any sort of motives in that direction in this encounter, the fact that people can see that power dynamic play out so clearly between a defenseless child and someone in a position of authority and not do anything makes you realize how then situations that are in that other direction can occur.
Kolby Reddish And it's a difference in degree. It's not a difference in kind. To hold a child without explaining to them what you're doing, because the whole interaction is captured on camera. To hold a child like that. The kid was probably 12, 13. I can't imagine he was any older than that based on just how young he looked. To hold a child against their will and physically restrain them without explaining to them what you're doing, it, I mean, I would call that abusive. It's not abusive. Like, again, a difference in degree rather than a difference in kind. But yeah, to restrain a child in front of a bunch of his peers and a bunch of other adults is abusive behavior in my mind.
Julia Yeah.
Nemo So sorry, There's a little side tangent on David A. Bednar's personal ethics, but yeah, yeah, yeah. I think it's important that, taken to the extreme, these things do lead to a lose, lose scenario where if you sin, you're bound, and if you are obedient, you're bound. It's just who are you bound to, I suppose is the question in his mind.
Julia Yeah. And so with that talk in mind and with the who has means to pay? They can pay Kolby, will you read? This is from Mosiah. 4. Read these verses.
Book of Mormon Teachings on Wealth and the Poor
Kolby Reddish Yep. So Mosiah, chapter four is King Benjamin's, one of King Benjamin's sermons in the Book of Mormon. And so he is teaching the people, and he says, and again, I say unto the poor, ye who have not and yet have sufficient, that ye remain from day to day. I mean all you who deny the beggar, because ye have not. I would that ye say in your hearts that I give not, because I have not, but if I had, I would give. And now if ye say this in your hearts, ye remain guiltless, otherwise ye are condemned. And your condemnation is just, for you covet that which ye have not received.
Kolby Reddish And now, for the sake of these things which I have spoken unto you, that is for the sake of retaining a remission of your sins from day to day, that you walk guiltless before God, I would that ye should impart of your substance to the poor, every man, according to that which he hath, such as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick, and administering to their relief, both spiritually and temporally, according to their wants. So I want to jump in here and talk about how, obviously there's slightly different scope in what King Benjamin is talking about here, because he's talking about giving to the needy.
Kolby Reddish And as we talked about, that may have been the original interpretation of tithing in the sense of, like, the Old Testament. But it isn't the way that the Mormon Church has interpreted what tithing is for. It's really for building up the Church's assets as we looked at in that revelation. But the other thing that I'm struck by is if tithing is a revelation that God gives to his people and it stands forever, forever doesn't just mean into the future, like you had asked me about Nemo. It means that the law should also project backwards into the past. Forever means forever. And it's interesting that we even have this discrepancy between what King.
Kolby Reddish King Benjamin in the Book of Mosiah is telling people, and the law of tithing is revealed to Joseph Smith. If it truly were a standing law given to God's people forever, it should be the same standard for this. Four people throughout time, forever. That's literally what the word forever means. And we don't at all.
Nemo Particularly when you consider that the Church claims to be a restorationist movement. Right. They're restoring things as they used to be. You would expect it to track backwards.
Kolby Reddish Exactly. But we don't even see that. We don't see a reference to tithing here explicitly. Instead, we see this concept of giving to the poor. But the reason you included this, Julia, is obvious to me. It's because it obviously looks like that all you who have means type intention when it says if you deny the beggar because you have not, you can behold guiltless as long as you have the right intention. And so to me, that connects to this original interpretation of tithing or the looser definition of tithing. I guess the less demanding interpretation of tithing, we find it here in the Book of Mosiah. But we really should find if it really were supposed to be a standing law to God's people forever, there should be no disagreement between what King Benjamin is teaching and what the contemporary church leaders are teaching. And that just isn't the case.
Nemo And why go on, Julia?
Julia I was just gonna say, could somebody just say this is about fast offerings and not about tithing because fast offering was given to help the poor.
Kolby Reddish That's probably what they would say. But then that's why I'm giving this other pushback and saying, then why don't we see any reference to tithing as taught by the contemporary leaders of the church here? If it's a standing law to God's people forever, why isn't it taught in the Book of Mormon the same way that it's taught in by the contemporary church?
Julia And we talked about this last time. I'm pretty sure every reference to tithing in the Book of Mormon are just reflections of the old and New Testament. I don't think there's anything new about it. Although I will say the Book of Mormon is very against priestcraft. And that's one of the reasons why when Joseph first he was like, hey, let Sidney and I like have an 80 acres of land and 1100 or 1400, I can't remember exactly the amount have this x amount of money, then that can be that. That we can use that. And then they're like, no, that's. That's priestcraft. Let's not do that.
Julia But then Joseph implemented the law of tithing. And so like to me with, when we look at the reasons here soon about the four reasons tithing was given, to me that looks a lot like priestcraft, which is the churches. I think the Book of Mormon defines that as churches that are built up to get gain. And I just want to have that in our heads too, was when we're going through the reasons for tithing. Is this priestcraft? Because I think that's very specifically against the Book of Mormon is very Specifically against priestcraft.
Nemo Also, Mosiah4.26 is very clear that in order to walk guiltless before God, you should impart of your substance to the poor, every man according to that which he hath. Now, I think there's a case there to be made to look at the church's amount of giving to the poor versus what they have. And I think they don't impart to the poor according to what they have or what they have. They impart to the poor according to what they think is enough to satiate their critics, because it went up the moment people found out how much money they had, but it's still not even a tenth of a tithe of that amount of money that they give away to the poor.
Julia Right.
Nemo So it's very little by comparison. You know, when. When we celebrate that they gave away $100 million, that sounds like a lot of money, and it is a lot of money. But compared to the amount of money they have, those sorts of donations should be going out the door more often than they are.
Julia Yeah. When you said when critics say this is kind of off. Kind of off a little bit. But when I have a friend that says, that was like, oh, the church isn't against lgbtq. They even donated to this LGBTQ foundation. And it was. With the amount of. I think it was less than $2,000. So I was like, that's like the. That's. That's nothing. That was. It wasn't even in the millions. It was just a few thousand dollars.
Nemo It's less than a penny falling out their pocket.
Julia Right. Like, so I. But I think it was like. But then members are able to go, oh, look, they donate, even though it's not. It's barely anything. But anyway. Okay, so I want to talk about this letter that happened. This is the First Presidency letter in March, from March 19th of 1970. Nemo, will you read this one?
The 1970 Tithing Letter and Official Definitions
Kolby Reddish So let me just jump in here first and say this is. This is. So The Brigham Young junior talk we read from General Conference was 1875. So this is 95 years later. Remember, this model of God is not the author of confusion. And this question remains unanswered 95 years
Nemo after Brigham Young talk about to make the exact same point. Why is there still question marks around what is considered a proper tithe 95 years after that talk, and even longer, well over a hundred years after tithing was first implemented.
Julia Right, Right.
Nemo If it's such a simple law to comprehend, as Joseph F. Smith said, then what's going on? Anyway, dear Brethren, and This is from March 19, 1970. This is the First Presidency letter. Dear brethren, inquiries are received at the Office of the First Presidency from time to time from officers and members of the Church asking for information as to what is considered a proper tithe.
Nemo For your guidance in this matter. Please be advised that we have uniformly replied that 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.
Nemo No one is justified in making any other statement than this. We feel that every member. But then this is key, because they're not going to just say, and that's it. They're going to introduce some more confusion, just for tradition's sake. 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.
Nemo Sincerely, your brethren, Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B. Lee and Eldon Tanner. So the son of the man who said, who has means, is making the point that, hey, it's income. But every member of the church gets to make their decision as to what they think they owe.
Nemo Everyone gets to make that decision for themselves, which it feels incongruous with the idea that you're presented in a meeting with the amount that you've paid and you're asked if that's enough. Is this a full tithe?
Julia Right. Yeah.
Kolby Reddish The other thing. Well, the other thing I'm struck by is they. If you can pull that up again for one more second.
Guest 2 Oh, do you want this?
Julia Okay. Yeah.
Kolby Reddish So they say one tenth of their interest annually, which is in that 1838 revelation, and they say, which is understood to mean income. If it were understood to mean income, why doesn't it say income?
Julia Yeah, it doesn't say that at all.
Kolby Reddish Right. Those are two different words. And just to maybe make that point, if you'll share my screen, Julia.
Julia Yes.
Kolby Reddish I went back to the 1828 definition of income.
Julia But keep in mind, this is 1970.
Kolby Reddish Yeah, this is 1970. But I'm making the point that as close as we can connect it to what it would have meant in 1838 in the original revelation, which is supposed to, again, come from a God who is not an author of confusion and as a standing law to his people for forever, there are differences between income and interest. So we earlier talked about what interest meant in 1828. But you can see here, income is defined as that gain which proceeds from labor, business or property of any kind, the produce of a farm, the Rent of houses, the proceeds of professional business, the profits of commerce or of occupation.
Kolby Reddish So you can see that one line, the profits, because we talked about how profits work. You can see that as maybe supporting income and interest being the same thing. Then you see it in the next line, the interest of money or stock in funds. And then this is really where the difference is highlighted. Income is often used synonymously with revenue. Revenue meaning all the money that comes into a business right before you pay those expenses or get arrears on those expenses or expenditures. So it's just interesting to me that like, if God meant income, why didn't he say income?
Julia Right.
Nemo Because income is everything that comes in. And then interest is more tightly defined than that.
Kolby Reddish Exactly.
Nemo Because what the reason I think it mentions here the profits of commerce or of occupation, the profits of your occupation are the money you are paid to do that occupation. Right. It's not profit in the sense of the money you make after you pay your expenses, etc. Running a business. It's the profits of make, of selling something. So then, so it's about, it's like you can imagine it like a balanced scale. The thing you own was worth certain amount for you to acquire. And when you sell it, if there's money that you get from selling it that's more than the value that you paid for it, then that is the profits of that. And then similarly profits of occupation. Essentially, it's a deal whereby you sell your time for money. You sell your time and your labor for money. So it's got a slightly different connotation.
Kolby Reddish The other, I guess the other thing I'm just struck by too is right after that, you know, making two terms which mean very different things. Equivalent, they say. And this is actually where I want to give them some credit. No one is justified in making any other statement than this. And then they make it more about personal decision between you and what you think you owe the Lord. I don't really like that phraseology of O, the Lord. And we're going to talk about, you know, how that can kind of be an unhealthy interpretation. But they say explicitly, no one is justified in making any other statement than this.
Kolby Reddish Shouldn't that have ended the conversation? We have three prophets, seers and revelators saying this is the best answer that you can get. And no one, no one period, is justified in saying anything other than this. And yet we're going to go through even more talks where people say other things than this.
Julia Yeah, but also it kind of feels contradictory to say no One is justified in making any other statement than this. Like, it means income, whatever comes in, that's what you pay your tithing on. But then this last sentence. 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. The Church does not follow this at all. You could just throw that out because people come in or they've been people on Mormon stories recently where this man was paying tithing to different. To different entities other than the church.
Julia And the bishop says, you. This tithing, these tithing receipts are not a doctor's salary because he was a doctor. And he. For. He was like, you need to be paying that to the church itself. So when it says, we let every man make his own decision about what he thinks he owes the Lord and make payments accordingly, that is not at all what the Church says. And I've had even some of my own siblings be brought into the bishop's office. And the bishop says, you are not paying enough tithing. So, yeah, they don't think that I
Nemo was denied a temple recommend on this basis. Personally.
Julia They told you that you weren't paying.
Nemo They were like, because you're not paying tithing to the Church. I was like, well, okay, fine. But I'm pretty sure the first presidency said, 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 make payment accordingly. And that's what I'm doing. I feel as though I am paying a full and honest tithe.
Julia And you quoted that to them and they still denied you.
Nemo Oh, yeah, yeah. Because the words of past profits do not age or increase in value like vintage cars and comic books. Julia, did you not listen to Elder Haney? They do not increase in value with age.
Guest 2 Oh, my gosh.
Nemo Haney is to follow the living prophet.
Kolby Reddish There's a hidden asterisk in that sentence that says it's up to you. That goes along with Elder Bednar's interpretation of agency. So it's your choice if you want to make the right choice or make the wrong choice.
Nemo Yeah. It's up to you if you want to rob God or not.
Julia And then them just changing that word, the interest to income, which is a completely different word and was not in the original revelation. I don't know. That's just wild to me.
Kolby Reddish Yeah.
Nemo And we'll move on, but just read this out loud again. One tenth of their interest annually. The words of the statement of the Lord Himself. 1/10 of their interest annually, which is understood to mean income. Why is it he said the word interest very specifically? And you've just made the appeal to authority by saying they are the words of the Lord himself, so why are you immediately changing them to mean something else? That's insane behavior.
Kolby Reddish But this, I mean, this is what happens anytime you have humans who need to speak for God to maintain their system. Joseph Smith does the same thing when he says, I can't remember if it's in the happiness letter or a different statement he made regarding polygamy, but he says that someone who condemns polygamy understands the laws of heaven only in part. That sounds. Yeah, I thought it was the happiness letter. But, you know, God is very condemnatory of polygamy in the Book of Mormon, specifically in Jacob, chapter two. Right. Calls it whoredoms and abominations.
Nemo So does he only understand the laws of heaven in part? Corby, is that what you're. God only understands the laws of heaven in part.
Kolby Reddish That's certainly the implication of what Joseph Smith says, because he can't remember what he had, you know, dictated in 1828, 1829, and he has to adapt it according to his contemporary needs. And we see the same thing here. I just want to underscore the point you made, Nemo, because it's so patently ridiculous. If you believe, as these men do, that this is the statement of the Lord himself, why in the world would you ever need to amend or change or interpret God's words? If God can speak to humans clearly and if he is not the author of confusion, especially if it was a
Nemo standing law given to us forever, it's not a standing law given until the definitions changed. And just to real quick bring Elder Bednar back into this again, we see the same thing when Elder Bednar gave a long general conference talk about how taking offense is a sign of a spiritual malady, deep spiritual malady. And then you get. Russell M. Nelson will stand up and say, when we use nicknames for the church, Jesus Christ himself is offended. So you're like, okay, so is Jesus Christ suffering from some sort of deep spiritual malady? That seems problematic. Words have meaning, and words are important. And there is a history in this church of not. Of not everyone being on the same page about what words mean.
Kolby Reddish And one of the. One of the things I want to connect this to is we did an episode recently where we looked at how, you know, believing in this system can make people subject or vulnerable to frauds. And I think one of the reasons that Mormons can be so vulnerable to frauds. I would point people to that episode for kind of the evidence. I'm not going to go into even a thumbnail version of that today.
Kolby Reddish But one of the reasons they can is because they get so comfortable with believing contradictory things at the same time. Income means intra. I'm sorry, Interest means income when we need it to. Agency doesn't mean agency. And one of the reasons that's so problematic is if you dig into the philosophy of epistemology, right, the study of how we know the things that we know when we're justified in believing things are true, what the word true even means, one of the three essential laws of thought or laws of logic is the law of non contradiction. It's recognizing that something can't both be itself and its opposite at the same time.
Kolby Reddish This is one of the reasons that Orwell's 1984 and that phrase Orwellian helps reveal what totalitarian systems do to someone's internal psyche. And this truly, for me is the reason that I believe Mormonism leaves people so vulnerable to frauds is because it le. It makes you very comfortable with believing completely contradictory things. And this is the important part. As long as the right person is authorizing you to believe those contradictory things, that is dangerous.
Julia Yeah, yeah.
Nemo Puts far too much control in certain people's hands.
Guest Yeah.
Nemo All right, Julia, what's next?
The Four Stated Purposes of Tithing Funds
Julia So the next parts is to break down the four reasons the tithing was given. And I'll just remind you guys what that is. So it says, for the building of Mine House, laying the foundation of Zion, for the priesthood, and for the debts of the presidency of my church. So the first one is for the building of Mine House. And I understand this to mean temple building. And so this is a, this is from the church statistics, the. The temple website. And so you have de. You have different numbers here. You have dedicated temples, 219 temples, temples under construction, 61 announced temples, 105. And then they held these different numbers. But then total they have 385. So to me that's been fulfilled. We have 395 either being dedicated, being built, whatever temples. So like, I don't know if you guys have anything to add to that.
Nemo No, it's just like that is tithing is being used for that, right? Yeah, I think it's a. I would argue it's a misplacement of tithing, given the amount of members there actually are that are able to actively worship in those temples. And given that a lot of those temples are Undermanned and understaffed and underutilized. Anyway, it seems to me that this is the use of tithing rather than for the laying of the foundation rather than for temples. It seems that it was used to satisfy the vanity of a man who wanted to beat one of his predecessors in the amount of temples he constructed. Yeah, that's what this seems like tithing is actually being used for here. Because I'm yet to hear a good argument for why this many temples are necessary when the church is losing members.
Kolby Reddish I would disagree that it's necessarily about vanity. I think really what it boils down to is the current leaders of the church suffer from a profound lack of imagination and creativity. I think this really ties back to.
Nemo To whole.
Kolby Reddish How old they are. And I think the simplest explanation here is that it's a bit like the Kevin Costner movie Field of Dreams. I think they don't know what else to do. And so they think if we build it, they will come. They think if we continue building these temples that it will, you know, result in more convert baptisms. I. One of the numbers I just ran really quickly is if to your point of the temples being understaffed, and for people who don't believe that, like, you can go on Reddit and see emails that go out in the Wasatch front weekly about how they need additional volunteers to staff these temples.
Kolby Reddish And please talk to your bishop about getting a calling as a temple worker if you were to take the 385 temples. And I get that 105 of these are still just, you know, announced and haven't necessarily been completed yet. But let's say we're. We're with that 385 number, and we divide that by the 17 million members that the church repeatedly claims. That's about 45,000 members to each temple. Obviously, there are children involved in the church, and so we would have to do some adjustments, but just to give a rough estimate, that's like 45,000 people for each of these temples. There's not. There's not even close to that amount of people participating in each of these temples.
Kolby Reddish There's not even a. Not even a tithe. I would suggest probably not even a tenth. Not even, you know, four to five thousand people that are regularly participating in these temples. So I guess what I'm saying is even if I were to grant them that, it's not just about vanity and push back on that idea a little bit. Nemo, I don't think it really helps them in any way. I think it Shows a profound lack of imagination, creativity, and also just like, how long are you going to keep doing the same strategy? That doesn't seem to really have resulted in what they thought it would be. Yeah.
Nemo What's crazy about them adopting that strategy is that 70 years ago they tried it when it came to meeting houses. We'll get onto this. But they tried it under Henry Moyle. He would have made Kevin Costner look like a cynic, frankly, the way he was spending money. And the only difference here is the church has enough money for this not to matter whether the gamble pays off, whether people actually do turn up or not. Whereas we'll get into later. Henry Moyle. The church didn't have the money for that.
Julia Right.
Nemo So this is them going, well, we have the money now, so I guess we can make it work. But it's not an unheard of thing for them to build buildings in the hope that it'll attract people in.
Julia Well, I also think one of the reasons is they build them to keep the members that they have strong. I don't even know if the church cares if they stand empty. But if it helps increase the faith of the members who are still active, it's holding on to what they haven't yet lost. I. I don't know. I think there's many reasons why they would build temples that they know won't be used.
Kolby Reddish So I agree with that, except for when members start to recognize that they're being asked to do more and more and more in the temples and to fill those temples and to staff those temples, and they go and they notice that the temples aren't full. But yet they're hearing in General Conference how the church has never been stronger, how it continues to grow at unprecedented levels. I think Quentin Cook made that claim recently in General Conference. I think there will be. Not everybody, but there will be members who start to look around and go, maybe this emperor doesn't have clothes on anymore.
Nemo To your point, Kolby, they are very used to believing contradictory things.
Kolby Reddish Yes.
Nemo So they're able to believe that the church is growing and also acknowledge the reality around them that these temples are empty.
Kolby Reddish Yes.
Nemo And there will be a question of how long they can sit with that dissonance.
Kolby Reddish Yes. There will be plenty of people who have gotten so comfortable with just believing what they're told and not thinking about it that there will be nothing that could shake them out of their faith.
Julia Yeah. Yeah. Okay, so the next one is for. For laying the foundation of Zion and Nemo. I think you did some research where this phrase was coming up in the sense of. Of physical land. Do you want to read this slide?
Nemo Yeah. Yeah, sure. So for as far as I could tell, we managed to work out that laying the foundation of Zion seemed to be about getting land for building up of Zion. Right. Because Zion is something that is built up and it's a place.
Nemo They say it's the pure in heart, it's whatever. But it's also in many instances within our dear scripture place. So we've got here. While somewhat vague, this phrase likely refers to the physical foundations of where the early Saints were located. In chapter 15 of the teachings of Joseph Smith, we see the phrase twice. On August 2nd, Joseph Smith and others met to begin the building of Zion. The prophet recorded, I assisted the Colesville branch of the church to lay the first log for a house as a foundation of Zion in Core Township, 12 miles west of Independence. And then the other instance is in the early 1830s, the saints attempted to lay the foundation of Zion in Jackson County, Missouri, as commanded by the Lord, but were unable to do so because they were not spiritually prepared.
Nemo The phrase also appears in D&C 58. 7&D&C 124. Concerning the building of the Nauvoo House. My favorite example of how the Lord can be incredibly specific when he wants to be, and yet he still can't give a clear definition of what hiding is and what increases to the point where they have to come back 100 years later and go, no, it's actually income. Turns out it wasn't clear enough at the time.
Nemo Yeah, but yes. So I think that this is about buildings, it's about church property. And so again, tithing is being used for this purpose. If you want to think about the fact that they are Florida's largest private landowner, that there was just recently an article out by Bloomberg where they looked into the church's real estate holdings and it is incredible. The size of the church's real estate portfolio. They can outbid Bill Gates for farmland in Washington State. That's insane.
Julia Yeah. So there we've got some news articles. This one is, the title is how a religious organization became Florida's largest private land owner. And then agriculture dive, I guess, is what this one is. The title is Mormon Church pays 289 million for dozens of U.S. farms. And then it goes on to say the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints, his real estate army is paying. Yeah, that same amount, 289 million. Was there anything else on here? They're just buying at farms.
Nemo They're buying at farms. I mean, they've done it in the UK as well. There's farmland in. Out in the east of England, where a lot of our agriculture is. The Coldam and Ghoul Estates Farmland Reserve, which is obviously the entity the Church works through, paid 108.5 million for farmland in the UK and that's pounds, probably 120, $130 million.
Julia Yeah. And they list off here Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Carolina. And then you just said in the UK as well.
Nemo And they've had a long tradition of agricultural holdings here in the UK because it's productive farmland.
Julia Okay. Wow.
Kolby Reddish To anyone who might push back Nemo on your idea that Zion, the building up of Zion, was intended, at least by Joseph Smith, to be a literal place. It's right in the Articles of Faith. Julia, if you'll share my screen.
Nemo I believe in the literal gathering of Zion.
Kolby Reddish Right. I pulled the article of faith 10 here. So we believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the ten tribes, that Zion, the new Jerusalem, will be built upon the American continent. So I get that it's kind of been equivocated into a more general definition of, oh, it's just a people, it's a mindset.
Guest But no.
Kolby Reddish Yeah. In Joseph Smith's world, in Joseph Smith's view, in the literal Articles of Faith, Zion is a specific place. And that specific place was supposed to be built starting at Jackson County, Missouri.
Julia Yeah.
Nemo Just to remind people, and we may have mentioned this last episode, but it's worth bringing up again that the Church is so willing to fight for their taxation exemptions that in the UK they fought all the way up to the highest court of jurisdiction at the time, the European Court of Human Rights, to try and get a full exemption, not just the 80% exemption they're being granted for their temples because they were told that they're not public buildings, so they don't get the full exemption from business tax rates. That's how desperate they are to press every little advantage for taxation purposes.
Julia Yeah, that's wild to me.
Nemo Just think about the millions they will have spent fighting that legal case in a foreign jurisdiction up the ladder, all the way up to the highest appeals court they could get to.
Julia Right. Okay, so this next. The next one, the third reason for tithing is for the priesthood, which is very vague. So I have a. This is from the Sally Tribune. This headline for this article is how much do top Mormon Leaders Make Leaked Pay Stubs May surprise you. And then we have from this is from 2017. So this, so I acknowledge that this is, this is an older article. And so the, the amounts that we're going to talk about are probably much higher. But you have so copies of the bi weekly stubs from Henry B. Eyring, then a member of the quorum of the Twelve Apostles. He reported that he earned 8, it says 83, over 83,000 from the start of 2000 until the first week of December. And then it increased and it's showing the increase amounts. Nima, do you want to read the parts that I've put arrows on?
How Much Leaders Earn and Church Finances
Nemo Absolutely. A second newly leaked document from a more recent year is a 2014 memo from the church's Presiding Bishopric, which handles all financial issues for the faith, noting that the base living allowance for all Mormon general authorities was being raised from 116,400 to 120,000.
Nemo And it goes on to say if there's more, it's unclear if there's more perks, etc. And then at the end it says no funds for this living allowance, the spokesman from the church said, come from the tithing of church members, but instead from proceeds of the church's financial investments. Here I think we're seeing the tension between that idea of priestcraft and the idea that in scripture it says for the priesthood is one of the purposes of tithing. So they could 100% justify saying, well, no, tithing is used to feed and house the leaders of the church that need feeding and housing.
Nemo I think it becomes possibly more complex in the eyes of many members when you introduce the priestcraft element. And that's why I think they make this distinction here. But I would also point out, anytime the church says none of this stuff comes from tithing, all the church's money ultimately comes from tithing.
Julia Right?
Nemo It may now come from selling orange juice out of Deseret Ranch in Florida, but that ranch was bought with tithing money or the interest gained from tithing investments originally. It all seeds back to that.
Kolby Reddish Sorry, that was going to be. Well, no, that was going to be. My big comment is on this slide is like we've talked about with the Huntsman tithing lawsuits in an episode John and Gerardo and I did a few years ago. All of this ties back to tithing. Like they try and build this bifurcation and say, oh, this comes from the church's financial investments. Those financial investments were made with invested tithing reserve funds. Like, there's no real separation here. I get what he's trying to do, but when he says none of this comes from tithing. He means, like, literally in the year that it's received as tithing. None of it comes from tithing. All of it. Like you said, Nemo ultimately goes back to tithing. The Church doesn't have any other funds.
Julia It's just interesting that, like, it says it in the verse for the priesthood, which is so vague, but I would assume that it means for the priesthood holders, these general authorities who are getting paid, and even the presiding president or presiding Bishop who they're getting paid. So like, why. Why say that it's not coming from tithing when the tithing revelation says it's okay that it comes from tithing. But then we also know that it does come from tithing because everything the church has is tithing. So it's just a weird.
Nemo Also, this. According to A quick Google, $120,000 in 2014 is worth about $169,000 today. I'd be very surprised if the Church hasn't at least kept up with inflation. So it wouldn't be surprising at all if this amount was somewhere closer to $200,000 a year.
Julia Right.
Kolby Reddish One of the, one of the things I would say as far as paying for the priesthood is if we go back to the model that's in the Book of Mormon, specifically, again with King Benjamin. King Benjamin makes a point in those early chapters of Messiah of explaining that he has not relied on the other people to provide for his sustenance, that instead he has worked shoulder to shoulder with them and provided for his sustenance with the labor of his own hands. I think that's in Messiah Chapter two.
Kolby Reddish I think the better explanation for why it's talking about supporting the priesthood is honestly because a lot of times Joseph Smith just remixed concepts together in a way that, like, sounded great as it fit his current need, but didn't necessarily make sense when compared to the rest of what he had taught. For example, he claimed that the Book of Mormon, I think it's in the introduction of the Book of Mormon, contains the fullness of the Everlasting Gospel. The Doctrine and Covenants provides a later definition of what the fullness of the Everlasting Gospel means, which includes the temple ordinances and blessings. Those aren't found in the Book of Mormon.
Kolby Reddish I remember actually noticing this contradiction, going back to that law of non contradiction, noticing this contradiction and asking my mission president about it from a place of sincerity, saying, like, these two, like, it's very weird to normally find it. And they were exactly the same term defined in different ways in church Scripture and my mission president told me to not ask questions like that.
Julia Oh, my gosh.
Nemo Oh, my gosh.
Julia Yeah.
Nemo Suspicious.
Julia Okay, so there's more on this one where it says many. This is from the same Salt Lake Tribune article. Many university presidents and even some faculty may make much more money, says Ships, who taught American religious history in Indiana for years. Compared to their pay, this is small potatoes. So, like, oh, you could argue that this is the big corporation that they're in charge of and getting paid, what, 120,000 is so tiny. Like, this is small. So, yeah. Anyway, I just wanted to throw that out there.
Nemo I want to do. Want to make a point here. Right. I find the sort of appeal to popularity or the what about ism here to be kind of slightly irritating or just funny. Well, compared to other people, we pay them less. Fine. That's not really what's at question here. I will say something I do appreciate about it is it does seem to be. There's an egalitarian nature to it in that everyone is paid the same amount. It's bothersome that no female leaders of the church, because they're general officers, not general authorities, they don't seem to be paid, which means that the only top female positions in the church are just unpaid.
Nemo It also meant that Brad Wilcox wasn't paid when he was a general officer of the church. On the young men's presidency, most likely, but he had his teaching gig at byu. But anyway, so I do appreciate that. And I do also appreciate that, by and large, we're not seeing from these men the same thing we see from certain mega church pastors and other religious groups where they are very clearly benefiting and living very overtly a prosperity gospel that is quite toxic. And they're talking about their private jets and they've got their right.
Nemo I do appreciate that. At least I think there's still a conversation to be had about the way the church has tried to represent the fact that they don't pay, they have no paid clergy, knowing full well that the leaders of the church are paid. That sort of misrepresentation clearly needs to be addressed.
Julia Wait, hang on. Did you just. Sorry, I just want to see if I understand you're correctly. You're saying that you're grateful that the Mormon general authorities don't live like, with private jets or in a certain lifestyle. Is that.
Nemo Well, they're not living the. What's his name? I can't remember his name, but there's a very famous.
Kolby Reddish Yeah. Kenneth.
Nemo Kenneth Copeland. Yeah. They're not living that kind of lifestyle. They're not, they're not showing this overt personal wealth and gain and this materialism. We're not seeing that from them. They are still living very privileged lives. They do take private jets. We know, for example, a private jet was organized to go see Jacinda Arden by Russell M. Nelson. We've got the emails showing that, you know, the private jet was used to make that trip. But you know, it's not being. Yeah. Does that make sense?
Kolby Reddish It makes sense to me. Let me jump in and explain. I don't. I don't think you could look at even the living allowance and say it seems like the leaders of the church are motivated by enriching themselves. Personally, I don't think that the evidence bears that.
Julia Okay.
Kolby Reddish And I think that is a fair criticism of prosperity gospel teaching. Evangelical pastors. That I don't think applies to the Latter Day Saint leaders. Now I agree with Nemo. The bigger problem is that the church has for a very long time repeatedly made the claim that it has no paid clergy. And the simple truth is that that just isn't true. These men are acting as clergy and they are paid for what they're doing. Now whether that pay is reasonable is a different question. This is often when we get the Mott and Bailey logical fallacy approach from apologists, including this non Mormon Jan Ships by saying, well, you know, compared to other people's pay, this is small potatoes.
Kolby Reddish It doesn't matter. The church's original claim was we have no paid clergy. It doesn't matter how reasonable that pay is or that the leaders of the church aren't enriching themselves. That's aren't. It doesn't seem like they're motivated, I guess by personally enriching themselves. Those are two separate questions. And the church had always said I had taught as a missionary repeatedly. The church has no paid clergy. And that's not true.
Nemo The church, it's been taught over the pulpit at General Conference, Thomas S. Monson said it when he was explaining how the church can afford to build buildings in Germany when they built a temple there. He was saying the church isn't wealthy, but we practice the law of tithing and we also have no paid clergy.
Julia I should have included this. The church is the wealthiest church, I think in the world, if not just the United States.
Kolby Reddish The Catholic Church has a lot of
Nemo money that is incalculable for wealth of the Catholic Church, just in the pricelessness of a lot of the artifacts they own.
Kolby Reddish The reason it's different is that the Catholic Church doesn't have a consolidated structure the same way the LDS Church does. They have the different dioceses and so the different dioceses own things separately.
Julia Oh, okay, gotcha.
Kolby Reddish Okay, now the other pushback I would give to the Apollo, like the kind of proto apologetic attempts in here is at the top of the page. It talks about how many of these individuals who make it to senior church leadership, you know, went to elite schools. They had successful careers as college presidents, lawyers, surgeons and CEOs. Tell me what the going rate is for a man in his hundreds. Because they're not earning six figure salaries doing a job anymore. They're just not. And so that's another form of kind of like fallacious thinking that is often offered on these. Well, these men could be making more if they had stayed in their, you
Nemo know, not at the age they end up getting pulled into these jobs.
Kolby Reddish Exactly.
Nemo Right, yeah. And then also. Okay, fine. These men have had very successful careers. Brilliant. If we are going to continue to select white collar individuals who have had very successful careers, rather than getting someone of a more modest profession in terms of financial renumeration, why not say to these men, okay, you've had very successful careers. One of the reasons we're picking you is because you can then be self sufficient in your retirement and then give your time to the church.
Julia Right.
Nemo Why don't you just use the clearly very, very good pension you will have earned being, I don't know, as a director in Lufthansa or you know, the director of ifit, for example, that when they went public almost made him a billionaire. Right. So why don't they just allow that and just say, okay, cool, you're independently wealthy men live on it.
Julia Right.
Nemo The church doesn't need to support you. I would understand if these people were being picked from more modest financial means, then it would actually make a better case for them paying them a stipend and paying their living costs, etc. Or if they even had to bother relocating. Patrick Kieran was One of the first apostles called even then he was a 70s, he was living in Utah anyway, but he became a 70 and then had to relocate into Utah. So these senior church leaders, they're a lot of them because they're American, A lot of them because they're from that part of America. They're not even having to move very far if at all to do this job.
Julia Yeah, yeah. I have some slides from the widow's my report and I, I recognize the writing is really small, but you can see that over the years in 2026 what I want to show from this chart is that it's. It's almost up to 200k. And Nemo, I think you pointed that out too, with inflation and things like that. So it's. So they're getting. They're getting a good amount of money. There's another one here.
Nemo For some reason they haven't kept up with inflation, which I don't think is a reasonable assumption.
Julia Right. This one is. Talks about their. Their what they're being. Their living allowance and things like that that they're being given. Let me see if I can increase this picture. I just wanted to read some taxable. Yeah, Nemo, can you read some of these?
Nemo Sure. So, widows, my estimates that 25 of the living allowance is classified as clergy housing or parsonage allowance. Parsonage is not counted as taxable income, but the remainder of the general authority's living allowance is taxed at the federal and state level. Interesting. Standard healthcare and retirement benefits are generally not counted as taxable income.
Nemo Just a point on that. When Russell Nelson was very, very sick, you know, he was receiving very, very high quality health care. And I can't imagine that he paid for it himself. If you throw that back up on screen, per child up to the age of 24 allowance estimated to be 3950 per year in 2026 is also taxable income. So they're getting a per child allowance. That seems unfair amongst Mormons who have loads of kids.
Nemo And then there's several deductions for supplemental insurance suggesting general authority benefits such as health care and disability. Mirror typical corporate plans. Oh, interesting. They mirror typical corporate plans, do they? Almost as though most of the men involved understand those systems very well. It's almost like the church acts as a corporation.
Julia Right. And this is just an image of the pay stub from Eyring, I believe. And I get these are really small, but I'll put them in the show notes so that you guys can explore those. But okay, so this is a talk from Elder Holland. It's like a watered garden that we already referenced before. This is from October of 2001.
Tithing as a Debt and the Unpaid Clergy Claim
Nemo Paying tithing is not a token gift we are somehow charitably bestowing upon God. Paying tithing is discharging a debt.
Julia Yeah. Did you guys have any thoughts on that?
Kolby Reddish Oh, it's just incredibly manipulative. I don't, I mean, to call it a debt, I just don't think reflects what it could be taught healthily. Like the way I understood tithing, the only way I could ever teach it to Investigators that didn't make me sick to my stomach was to talk about how it is an exercise of our faith, that one of the things that is most difficult for us to do is to make that sacrifice of our money and to give it freely. But to call it a debt makes it sound, again, like it just brings in this element of coercion that I just find so off putting, particularly when he's speaking for the church that is the recipient of people's donations that he's calling a debt.
Kolby Reddish The last thought I have, I guess, on this is actually just shortly before Kami and I appeared on Mormon Stories almost five years ago for the first time, I was in the middle of my faith crisis, and I had always been taught that our paying of tithing is one of the ways that we show the Lord our faith. And as I was like, right about to appear on Mormon Stories, I think it was just like a month before we were deciding to go back to church, try and make this weird kind of nuanced thing work after all the stuff we'd experienced in local warden stake.
Kolby Reddish And I had been saving the tithing that I hadn't paid in an account, like in a separate account, so I knew exactly how much I owed, and I paid it at the very last minute, like as a show of faith, because I looked at it this way that I looked at it, like, almost like this coercive element. And I don't know, it just makes me sick when you compare that coercive element and you look at that talk that we looked at from Lindgy Robbins.
Kolby Reddish It's very difficult for me to square that with good intentions on the leader's part. It seems very coercive to be telling the members that this is a debt that you owe God when they really mean this is a debt you owe the church. And we all know that.
Julia Yeah, yeah, there's a point. We've already made this point, too, but we can talk about this a little bit. So on September 3rd of 2009, the church's newsroom published an article titled the Church's Unpaid Clergy. Although the word clergy means people trained, ordained, and authorized to lead religious services, ceremonies and spiritual care within the faith, the article only addresses bishops. It reads in part, bishops are supported by two assistants and a myriad of administrative and teaching staff. All contribute their time and energy without compensation. So they're just kind of sidestepping, like, oh, we don't pay bishops. So look, we have unpaid clergy, even though we know that.
Nemo Can I make a perhaps somewhat glib point.
Guest 2 Sure.
Nemo I would argue that actually bishops are really the only clergy the Church has. Even though they're not trained particularly well, they are authorized to lead and they are ordained as bishops. And the senior leaders of the church, the 12, the 15, the 70s, and particularly the 70s, you could almost make the argument that they're not paid clergy because they're not really clergy, they're not really spiritual leaders. They aren't really engaged in the spiritual work of the church. They're managers, they run a corporation, they give corporate speeches at a gathering every six months. I don't feel like they may view themselves as such, which is why it's hypocritical for them to say they have no paid clergy because they clearly view themselves that way. But I hope it's clear the point I'm making that actually really, I don't think they do feed the Church particularly well spiritually.
Julia That's a very interesting take. Yeah, well, if you change that definition when you make none of the top leaders clergy, then sure, they have no unpaid clergy.
Nemo But I don't think that's what the Church is doing, to be clear. I think they're just being hypocritical and dishonest with this. But I think it just brought to mind the fact that or the just the sad spiritual state of the Church's top leaders is what it brought to mind for me. The fact that they act far more like corporate managerial individuals than they do like genuine spiritual leaders.
Julia That's really interesting. And then here. Kolby, will you read this one? This is from the church's website. It says, do general authorities get paid?
Kolby Reddish Yep. So the answer the church gives is general authorities leave their career when they are called into full time church service. When they do so, they are giving given a living allowance which enables them to focus all of their time on serving in the church. This practice allows for far more church members on a worldwide basis to be considered for a calling to serve as a general authority, rather than limiting considerations to only those who may be financially independent. The living allowance. And yet the vast majority of them come from very wealthy backgrounds. The living allowance is uniform for all general authorities. None of the funds for the sling living allowance come from the tithing of the church members, but instead from the proceeds of the Church's financial investments which came from the tithing of the church members. I will add for them.
Nemo Yes.
Julia Yeah.
Nemo So again, we've got this like, oh, don't worry, it's not coming from tithing. The revelation says it can. Guys, this is your one Thing where you could say, yeah, of course, as, as established in scripture, tithing is for this is what they could say. But they seem to have a real sort of aversion to people feeling as though tithing money is used to pay leaders. Because I think it screams of priestcraft.
Julia Well, you say that, but then the next thing is the debts of the presidency of the first. The debts of the first presidency, which means to me is like this really feels like priestcraft.
Nemo Well, and I suppose, I mean these days that would be the debts of the church. Right. Because it's a corporation soul. So down the jokes. His debts are the church's debts in. In the new corporate structure of Mormonism. That's kind of how that works. But in the old days, yeah, it's the individualized debts of the first presidency. I think the idea being that they've incurred these debts in the running of the church or in the leading of the church. And so they should be supported in that. For example, like Joseph Smith would take on personal debts in order to do X, Y or Z building project and the members then, you know, support those debts because the building benefits the whole church.
Nemo That's the most like steel, man. Way I can see this being or operating in the early church is that Joseph's incurring these debts as a person because a person has to be responsible for the debt. And so it is supported by the rest of the church with tithing because the thing he's going into debt for benefits the church.
Julia Right. It's also interesting to me that they say for the priesthood and which you could say it could be the debts of the priesthood. Maybe, but just to be more specific, they're saying and also for the debt,
Nemo there's also an argument that for the priesthood could be about missionary work. Right. We've not even touched on that. It could be. We just don't know because for some reason it's really clearly defined.
Julia And you mean like for gaining priesthood
Nemo members or just for the supporting of the priesthood brethren who go out and
Julia teach the gospel like the elders?
Nemo Yeah, the elders, yeah.
Kolby Reddish Maybe we need to go more literal with it. Maybe the reason the church needs all of this money is because we need to invent the. A time machine to get Peter, James and John to appear and give the priesthood literally to Joseph Smith. Okay, we need to cut.
Nemo Well, hang on. No, Kolby, we'll keep that in because they're already appearing out of sequence in the temple ceremony where they appear as resurrected beings despite having not lived yet. They're already time traveled so physical resurrected beings are out.
Kolby Reddish That's a good point. I commend you for your integrity.
Julia Oh, my gosh. Okay, so this fourth and final one we've already been kind of talking about is the debts of the president, first presidency. And then I know we're kind of running out of time because we're trying to keep these under two hours, but.
Church Debt, Henry Moyle, and Financial History
Nemo Oh, we've got plenty of time. We'll get there.
Julia We'll go. Okay, so this is a brief. We're going to run out a brief history of the LDS Church, the church's debt. So I don't know if we. Should we go every other one, or should I just read them all?
Nemo Let's read them all.
Julia Right. The Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints experienced several periods of serious financial difficulty throughout its early history. In Kirtland and Nauvoo, the church borrowed heavily to fund land purchases, construction, and expansion. The most significant 19th century financial crisis came in the 1870s and 1890s as the church expanded its businesses and construction projects, while also facing increasing financial and legal pressure from the federal government over plural marriage.
Kolby Reddish Can I pause you and ask a question on this? Would that be more severe than, like, the Kirtland Safety society scandal in 1837, 1838? I just am wondering where their assets
Julia were going to be taken away if they did not stop polygamy. So, like, everything was just going to be removed. So I don't know which one. Would it be more serious? I don't know. That's a good question. In 1898, the church was reportedly more than 1.25 million in debt. In 1899, Lorenzo Snow launched a major campaign encouraging members to pay a full tithe. And then he's the one who also said, who has means. I'll just add that the increase, the results, the resulting increase in tithing revenue helped the church stabilize its financial finances and pay down its debts. So they're able to get out of that. By the early 1900s, the church had eliminated its major debts, with LDS histories generally dating this to around 1906.
Nemo And. Sorry, I got something wrong. Earlier I talked about it being Joseph F. Smith when it was Lorenzo Smith.
Julia Right. Yeah, that's fine. Okay, so I just throw this one in there. This is me. This next clip is from me. Um, one of the reasons the church was able to get out of debt is because they had. They owned buildings that people they would allow to be rented out. And then some of those buildings, knowingly, they were whorehouses. So they. The church was profiting off of. Of. Of sex workers. So I'll just play this clip and we can move on.
▶ Video Clip 2Video Clip 2 Did you know that the Mormon Church was making money off of whorehouses in the early 1900s? Can I say whorehouses on TikTok? It sounds made up, but it's not so. In the early 1900s, the Mormon Church was struggling financially, but under President Lorenzo Snow, it began to recover. It was for this reason that the Church allowed these houses of ill repute to continue. The Mormon Church owned buildings on what is now Regent street that they were knowingly leasing out as brothels. According to historian D. Michael Quinn, this remained an uncomfortable secret until 1908, when the salt Lake Tribune proclaimed that the Brigham Young Trust Company filled these houses on Commercial Street, AKA modern day Regent Street.
Video Clip 2 This article noted that the church owned Clayton Investment Company Continue to lease these houses of prostitution and that the LDS Church's annual rent was $2,400 from just one of these brothel leases. $2,400 in 1908 is equivalent in purchasing power to over $86,000 today. The Tribune's description of the situation was not as harsh as the views of Councilor Anthony H. Lund, who had previously written as an apostle that the general authorities on the company's board had fitted a whorehouse, or Young's charge that they were running a whorehouse. Although the LDS Church was technically and legally only the leaster of the buildings, some general authorities regarded the Church's leadership as morally implicit in brothel management.
Video Clip 2 Internal records even show leadership eventually ordering these properties to be cleaned up or closed, emphasizing that morality, not money, should be that priority. But the shift didn't happen immediately. For years, the revenue continued. In fact, the Mormon Church did not divest its houses of prostitution until 1941. So the Mormon Church continued to profit from these brothels under Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith, and most of the presidency of Heber J.
Video Clip 2 Grant.
Video Clip 2 As Quinn puts it in all four general authorities of the LDS Church were officers or directors of the two LDS holding companies while they leased houses of prostitution. Interestingly, the Mormon Church climbed out of debt on April 5th of 1907. So why did they keep profiting off of brothels for 37 years after they no longer needed the money? Why did they allow brothels at all? Could it be that the Church really cares about money?
Julia Yeah. And if you. And so during that. During this clip that I'm showing, you can just go on Regent street and there's all this history, like on the. On the floors and on plaques and things like that.
Nemo So I just want to point out that Regent street in the UK is the home of Hamley's, the world's largest toy shop. So I don't know what you guys are doing with your Regent street, but ours is wholesome as anything. All right, Stop besmirching the name of Regent Street. Street, please.
Julia Anyway, so I just wanted to throw out because it's a very interesting part of church history.
Nemo In. In some ways it feels no different to the fact that church owns distilleries. Right. Or owned distilleries under Brigham Young.
Julia Oh, yeah, what was it?
Nemo Was it Valley Tan? Was the name of this very strong whiskey that Brigham Young. That was produced under Brigham Young. But anyway, so, yeah, the. The church has a. It's the same as what they choose to invest in now. Right. I don't think their investment portfolio is particularly sort of morally managed. I don't think there's any sort of particular consideration given to what Lockheed Martin are doing with the money that they give them, for example.
Nemo So, yeah, I think that's a long tradition in the church that when it comes to making money, the act of making money is in somewhat sort of separated ultimately from the thing that they make money from. The act of making money seems to be more important.
Nemo And that, I'm sorry to say, is a very American thing. When people talk about Mormonism being a very American religion, I think it's behavior like this, this intensely sort of capitalistic behavior of the church that I think draws that comment.
Julia Yeah, yeah. And so going on with the debt. Nima, will you talk about Henry De Moy?
Nemo I love talking about Henry Moyle. It's partly because it happened in the uk, a lot of what he did. So I'll read this slide. There's a picture of Henry Moyle there. In April General Conference 1959, the Church of Jesus Christ Last Day Saints published the financial data for the year 1958. And I've made this point a lot, and I'm really glad we're making it here. This was the last time the church ever gave a detailed accounting of its finances, despite Gordon B. Hinckley saying to a German interviewer, sort of the late 90s, early 2000s, saying that we believe that those financial details belong to the members of the church. So that's why we don't share them publicly. The members of the church have never had a detailed account of the church's finances since 1959.
Kolby Reddish I think Waddell, for what it's worth, Waddell said something very similar in his 60 Minutes interview to what Hinckley said in that one. I'll see if I can find it while you continue.
Julia Although we can't play that though. We can just.
Kolby Reddish No, I would just read.
Julia Okay, perfect.
Nemo You can go on arXiv.org, i hope we've got a link in the description where you can read the 1959 account and see just how detailed it is. It's the amount they're spending on missionary work. It's the amount they're spending on the Relief Society program. It's the amount they're spending on all these things. Two months after that conference in April 1959, newly appointed second councillor Henry D. Moyle, architect of the baseball baptism scheme, which is what took place in the UK, launched a building spree to increase the number of LDs meeting houses in a bid to attract members. Moyle adopted a build it and they will come strategy worthy of that Kevin Costner film.
Nemo In tandem with this building program, Henry D. Moore used his baseball baptisms program to create the converts to fill the chapels. And while on paper the number of converts increased, tithing revenue did not, because they were mainly baptizing 12 year olds, right. And using permission slips to play baseball that were actually consent forms to be baptized into the Mormon Church and become a member.
Nemo So it's this weird thing where he thinks, well, we've got an increase of members on paper and we're going to build these buildings so that there's somewhere for them to go and then somehow this tithing money will appear, Right?
Nemo Even though these children weren't even given the lessons to say, hey, you're going to have to start paying tithing now. They didn't know. So I suppose that's what you get for baptizing young boys as converts without their parents. Moyle had thrown out the established budget and spent 8 million more on these programs than the Church had brought in. That was in stark contrast to the Church's spending for the fiscal year before the. Before Moyle took charge, when they reported a $7 million surplus in order to try and hide the financial pressures that the Church program was putting on the Church. Henry Moyle convinced President David okay to cease publishing detailed financial data.
Nemo As we teach our children, hiding something doesn't make the problems go. And in fact, things only got worse. The deficit by 1962 stood at $32 million.
Julia Like, let's just not tell them that we got in trouble.
Nemo Yeah, that's fine.
Julia Yeah, it's fine.
Nemo If I can't see them, they can't see me. That's how that works. If we got the next slide.
Julia Yeah, yeah.
Nemo Okay. So this is just summarizing all that up again, right. They end up in this $32 million deficit.
Guest 2 It.
Nemo And by the summer of 1963, church finances were so strained that financial officers questioned whether the church would be able to meet payroll obligations or not. Moyle was subsequently removed from responsibility for church finances and missionary work.
Kolby Reddish And then that's so weird because I was taught, who the Lord calls, he qualifies.
Nemo Weird indeed. But now they very much operate on who's qualified. The Lord calls. So Christopher Waddell with his banking experience and Bishop Corsay with his banking experience and, and all that sort of stuff.
Julia Right.
Nemo So the church's financial strategy then brings them back in because they had. They had depended on future growth and future tithing to pay for extension expansion. And the gamble didn't. Didn't work. And so they brought someone in to steady the ship, and they did, within a few years. But did they go back to publishing tithing records? No, of course not. Once you realize, oh, the members don't care if we tell them what's going on with our money. We just don't tell them anymore. We don't need to. We can just have Kevin Jorgensen stand up and say, well, we're playing by the rules we set ourselves. It's all fine, guys. Don't you worry.
Julia And Kolby, did you were able to find that quote did from Odell.
Kolby Reddish So I found the one that we've talked about before where the interviewer in that 60 Minutes interview asks him, do you. Don't you agree that this would be a non issue if there was more transparency? And he says no, because then everyone would be telling us what they want to do with the money. And I guess maybe what I'm thinking of is if Hinckley's statement is true, if the tithing belongs to the members and they're the ones who should have that disclosure, wouldn't they have a right, it would seem to me, to tell the church what they believe the church should be doing with the money.
Kolby Reddish Separate external voices from internal voices. Their lack of transparency on this issue forbids both. Both external and internal voices, which is so ironic because that's where the money originally comes from. But they apparently, if members don't demand better of the church, then the church is just going to do what it's going to do. And it has done for the last. Well, since 1958.
Nemo The consequences for demanding better, I have experienced personally, are Excommunication. So they do generally discourage asking for better.
Kolby Reddish I did find a 2020 interview with the Presiding Bishopric where Waddell said, this is in the Deseret News. The members of the church have a right to trust that it's going to be managed and handled well and not just thrown at issues which has aged so, so poorly since the SEC issue that we talked about several episodes ago.
Nemo I also love the idea that that is essentially like, they have a right to trust us. That's the right they have. They have a right to trust me, bro. That all is well with the money that you give over. Imagine someone coming to you and asking for investment. But okay, so what sort of rights do I have as an investor? You have the right to trust me. That I'm not going to, like, mess with your money and throw it away and lose it. You have the right to trust me.
Kolby Reddish Oh, it's very similar to Bednar's reinterpretation of what agency means, which is you have the right to choose exactly. To do exactly what you're told to do and nothing more and nothing less.
Nemo Yeah, yeah. But were we always meant to pay tithing? Julia? This is the question, and I think Elder Packer is going to teach us, right?
Later Leaders Reaffirm Tithing Expectations
Julia Yeah. So this is Elder Packer. This is the talk called Teach Them Correct Principles. This was in April of 1990, and he's reiterating Lorenzo Snow's earlier talk.
Nemo President Joseph F. Smith, as early as 1907, said, oh, Joseph, we may not be able to reach it right away, but expect to see the day when we will not have to ask for $1 of donation for any purpose except that which you volunteer to give of your own accord. Because we will have tithes sufficient in the storehouse of the Lord to pay everything that is needful for the advancement of the kingdom of God.
Julia Yes, I misspoke. It was Joseph F. Smith, because we talked about that before. Where in our other the history of tithing where this will not that we will see the day where we won't have to ask you for tithing.
Nemo Did you hear that? Did you hear that get stuck in his throat a little bit? Like as he started to say it, it's almost like he couldn't quite believe what he was about to read, that he was about to even imply the tithing may stop.
Kolby Reddish It's interesting to me, too, that this is because Ensign Peak is created in 1997, as we gave a whole history on that in the SEC episode we did recently. It's interesting that this is given in 1990. So in 1997. Like, their solution to having more income in tithing than they need is to go park it in the stock market and grow it. Right. Like infinitely. So I wonder if there's a backstory on to why he's. He's having that thought in 1990 based on the Church getting itself out of the financial trouble that Henry de Moyle had gotten them into.
Julia Right. Yeah. Okay, so just to recap what or summarize what we've talked about. So the tithing was given for four reasons. The building of mine house. The church will soon have. Once these are dedicated and completed 385 temples for the laying a foundation of Zion. They're the largest private landowner in Florida, at least I know that they have purchased land throughout the United States and throughout the United Kingdom for the priesthood. The general authorities get paid six figures. Of course, this can mean other things like missionary work or whatever, but it's just a vague phrase.
Nemo But then missionary work is paid for by members directly. So again, that's true.
Julia And yeah, we talked about that as well. And then this last reason is for the debts of the First Presidency of the Church. The church has been out of debt for decades. The church. Yeah, the church just is not in debt anymore. So I also will. I just want to argue that I think we're paying too much tithing because I think the words interest and surplus are very specific and they do not mean income. So I think we should not be being. Not have to pay tithing on that specific 10%, but on a different 10%. And then the four reasons have been. Have been met and I don't think that they. Even if we will stop paying tithing, these things can still operate and function just fine. Is from my understanding of what enzyme Peak makes so correct. Yeah. Okay. So this is a.
Nemo And yet tithing is still so important that in April 2026, we heard this. I heard this conference talk live and in person. I was in Salt Lake in the building and heard this talk given.
Julia Okay.
▶ Video Clip 3Video Clip 3 The only thing I had of value was a car that I needed in my efforts to grow my business. However, I concluded that I should at least make an effort to sell my car. So I cleaned and polished it and placed an ad to sell it.
Video Clip 3 I want to be clear that Elder Cutler did not ask me to sell my car. This came to me after pondering and my desire to put God first. A few days later, a man came to the house to see the car. He seemed interested. He drove it and came back to discuss the details, he gave me his business card, and I realized he represented a car dealership.
Video Clip 3 I was nervous about what would surely happen next. The haggling back and forth over the price. He asked me, how much do you want for the car? I told him I needed a precise amount. I had calculated what I needed to pay off the loan on the car and pay my tithing.
Video Clip 3 He then said very calmly, okay, I'll come back in a few days with a check. He thanked me and left. I could not believe it. No arguing, no haggling, no negotiating. A few days later, he came back with a check for the amount I requested. I was surprised and amazed as he drove off with the car.
Video Clip 3 I deposited the check and paid my tithing. As I contemplated what had occurred, I realized that I didn't have a car to continue with my business. While I was thinking about what to do, a friend called me and said, jorge, you like my car, don't you? At that point, I would have liked any car.
Video Clip 3 He reminded me that his wife was having twins and that he needed to buy a larger vehicle and wondered if I would be willing to take over his car payments. It was a miracle.
Julia Okay, thoughts on this question?
Nemo So many thoughts. I cannot help but imagine that he just undersold his car or undervalued it to this guy. And this guy's like, great, I got a steal. That's why there's no haggling. No car salesman is going to not haggle if they're going to lose money. So he just undervalued his car. There's nothing extraordinary about that other than he went, I need this amount of money. It's like, he probably went, I need six grand, and the car's worth ten. So the dealer's like, yep, yep, okay, that sounds fine to me. I'll pay you 6 for that car. That's worth 10, and I'll make money on it. That's fine. So there's that, and then there's an idea that it's a miracle that someone else has a car or like, but.
Kolby Reddish And it wasn't even a gift of a car. It was the gift of taking over someone else's car.
Nemo So you know what it was? It was the gift of getting into debt is what it was. Essentially, he had a friend call up and like, hey, do you want to take over my debt? And the church, forever encouraging us not to be in debt and forever trying to model that we shouldn't get into debt, is now celebrating over the pulpit at General Conference. A man Going into debt in order to pay his tithing. Literally going into debt in order to pay his tithing.
Julia Yeah, that's true. I just. It's also wild to me that how stories of miracles sort of change during conference or these presentations. Like the one that I really think is funny is the guy that squished a gnat and then the resurrection of the gnat, the resurrection of the net.
Kolby Reddish Elder Gay is his name.
Julia Yeah. Okay. Anyway, so my. This last question is, what is tithing used for? And so I just wanted to read the overview. Kolby, would you read the overview from the church?
Where Tithing Money Actually Goes
Kolby Reddish Church members give their tithing donations to local leaders. These local leaders transmit tithing funds directly to the headquarters of the church, where a council determines specific ways to use the sacred funds. This council is comprised of the First Presidency, the Quorum of the twelve Apostles, and the Presiding Bishopric. Acting according to Revelation, they make decisions as they are directed by the Lord. Tithing funds are always used for the Lord's purposes, to build and maintain temples and meeting houses, to sustain missionary work, to educate church members, and to carry out the work of the Lord throughout the world. So that means, Nemo, earlier when you flagged, hey, wouldn't they have spent a lot of money on lawyers litigating this issue of this tax exemption in the UK up to the, up to the top court in the uk, Remember that those tithing funds were used for the Lord's purposes. So that was the Lord's litigation, and
Nemo that was guided by revelation. There is a clip out there of Gerard Corsair saying that the church's tithing money is spent with the spirit of revelation. Which means that when they built 13 shell companies, that was the spirit of revelation.
Kolby Reddish The SEC didn't disagree or didn't agree
Nemo with that the spirit of revelation led them to violate SEC regulations.
Kolby Reddish Yes.
Nemo Yeah.
Kolby Reddish On to the next one.
Julia Nima, will you talk about this one?
Guest Yeah.
Nemo So what I do find really interesting is when the church pushes back on the 60 minute segment on church finances, whenever the sort of finances are reported and how wealthy the church is is reported, they say, well, no, you've missed the rags to riches history of the faith. Which I think the rags to riches thing again, is meant to play to an American audience. This idea that we pulled ourselves up by our bootstraps and we made ourselves wealthy. That's like an American narrative that plays well. But I think what this does is essentially say, hey, but don't forget, we used to be poor. And I think implicit in that is this idea that we could be Poor again because the church has had financial difficulties in its history.
Nemo And in the same way that the church maintains a persecution complex because they have been persecuted in the past, it kind of becomes part of the DNA of the church to have this scarcity mindset of, well, we might just lose it all at any minute. And don't forget that we used to be poor and we weren't always this wealthy. So please bear that in mind.
Nemo So, yeah, playing this rags to riches story, I think is trying to frame this more of a look how successful we've managed to be rather than look how ungodly wealthy we are.
Julia Right. And then there's an article was published in 2012 by Peter Henderson and it reads in part, relying heavily on church records in countries that require far more disclosure than the United States.
Kolby Reddish Let's go.
Julia Sociologist Ryan Craigen. And how do I say that? Reuters estimate that the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints brings in some 7 billion annually in Tithe and other donations. And that's from NBC.
Nemo Other countries of the UK and Denmark, amongst others, and Australia.
Kolby Reddish It'd be really interesting. Canada, basically everybody but us. It'd be really, it'd be really interesting to me to know because this data, they're, they're making assumptions based on data that we do have. Right. And I think they're making reasonable assumptions. But this was published in 2012. What would be really interesting to me is to see whether the data shows a precipitous drop in tithing revenues after the Ensign Peak whistleblower report in late 2019. I don't know if I've ever.
Julia Yeah, I don't know.
Nemo This number was reconfirmed by Roger Clark in 2019 when all that broke. So it remained steady at least until then, Right?
Julia That's true. Yeah.
Guest Yeah.
Julia And then there's another one. This is an article, just a screenshot from the Washington Post. The article is, the headline is Mormon Church has misled members on 100 billion tax exempt investment Fund. Whistleblower alleges.
Nemo So people were starting to work it out in 2012 that the church was bringing in a lot of money. And then the story broke that not only they've been bringing a lot of money, they've been storing some of it away and they've amassed a hundred billion dollars.
Julia Right.
Guest Yeah.
Julia And then so I think, I really think that brings in 7 billion in tithing. But doesn't Ensign Peak make about the same every year and.
Nemo Right, so if we go to the next slide. Yeah, we can throw Hartman Rector Jr. Up as well. But okay.
Julia Was it after that?
Kolby Reddish It is the fact that we look better when we pay tithing.
Nemo There's a blessing that comes into the
Kolby Reddish heart of the tithe payer that even
Nemo reflects in his countenance many times. That's very Kenneth Copeland. Right.
Julia I just wanted to throw that one in there.
Nemo Very megachurch pastor coded. I don't know whether it's the site Southern accent or what it is, but it's. Yeah.
Kolby Reddish Who knew that tithing could offer you a glow up? Maybe I should start paying again.
Nemo I don't know.
Julia So, Nemo, did I have the slide in there that you were looking for?
Nemo Yeah, well, it comes towards the end. That's fine.
Julia Okay. Okay. So I just wanted to remind what the tithing, it's a standing law unto them forever. And yet we have Joseph, Joseph F. Smith, where he says, we expect to see the day when we will not have to ask you for $1 of donation for any purpose except that which you volunteered to give of your own accord. So I guess we've talked about this before. They have seen that day, but they won't. They're not going to ask, I guess, to stop tithing because it's a standing law forever. It's just an interesting thing.
Calls for Transparency and Closing Reflections
Nemo And then this is what I was going to bring us to. This is the petition I started when I was wet behind the ears, naive and thought I could maybe make a difference. Difference. It's still active and live though, so people can go and sign it. I think we could have a link in the description if people want to go sign this petition.
Julia So you didn't create in 2021 or this is just how.
Nemo Yeah, no, I created it in 2021.
Julia Okay.
Nemo Yeah, yeah, yeah. So it's been running for five years now.
Kolby Reddish When he still had hope in his
Nemo eyes, when I still had hope in my eyes, when I wasn't.
Julia I guess I wasn't sure when the hell.
Nemo Jaded.
Kolby Reddish Yeah.
Julia Okay.
Nemo So the idea was that essentially it's been confirmed if you throw up the next slide. Sure, I can summarize this because I wrote it. But essentially Joseph F. Smith said in 1907, we will see that day when we'll not have to ask you. I argue that that day has arrived that they have sufficient in the storehouse of the lord. They have $100 billion. They've also confirmed that they bring in about $7 billion of tithing annually. They confirmed that they make about the same amount that they make sort of 7 to 8% return. And so what you could do, essentially, I Argue if you go to the next slide.
Guest 2 Sure.
Nemo I argue that we allow $7 billion to be freed up and go into the charitable sector worldwide, whether that's local or international charities, and a mixture of both from people. The church runs Enzyme Peak like an endowment fund. Skims off the top because we know that of that 7 billion, they use 6 for church operations, and then they put one away. They could do exactly the same thing with the returns on Enzyme Peaks. They could spend six of their returns, put one away so their fund would grow by a billion dollars a year and they could spend the rest of the interest and that the actual.
Nemo The original capital wouldn't be touched. That's the argument I make here. Two and a half thousand people nearly agree with me. And if you do, too, you can also sign it and maybe I'll send it off to the First Presidency when we get a fair few signatures. Just see what happens.
Julia Yeah, I'm not sure that they would actually like this.
Nemo Got featured in Mormon land in 2021. I think it's my first time being featured in Salt Lake Trip.
Julia Wow, that's exciting.
Nemo But I still think that this is a perfectly functional alternative where people still get to obey the law of tithing, they still get to keep that standing law. They still get to give that sacrifice of themselves. They still get to give that money away to the poor and needy who need it because the church doesn't need it anymore. And even if tithing income stopped tomorrow, they could run the church for decades on the amount of money that they have. So.
Kolby Reddish Well, I think they could probably run it into perpetuity as long as there's no real change in the expenses. Because if we think about the fact.
Nemo Well, sorry, yes. If tithing revenue stopped coming in because we give it to charity instead, they could run it in perpetuity as an endowment fund. Even if other stuff crashed and went wrong. Like, even if they had to start spending the capital, I think was my point there. There's enough capital there for them to run it for decades.
Julia Right. Yeah.
Nemo And decades is a long time to then get your feet back under you in whatever new landscape emerges.
Julia Yeah.
Nemo It's a lot of breathing room, shall we say.
Guest 2 Yeah.
Nemo But they won't, because they've got dragon sickness. They got dragon sickness. And so dragon sickness is from the hoarding.
Guest Yeah.
Nemo Where, you know, people become obsessed with the wealth that they hoard and they become very jealous and guard it very jealously. And I think they're also just paralyzed by the amount of money they have. Honestly, that would be my take. My final kind of closing take would be, I think the leads, the church are paralyzed by the amount of money they have. And I don't think they know what to do with it. Oh, they know that it growing equals good, but. But they don't know beyond that what they should do.
Kolby Reddish I think they also show a profound lack of faith repeatedly in their own members on this issue by withholding information from the members. I think they do legitimately probably believe and justify to themselves on the basis that they believe they're doing it for people's own good. But again, coming back to how we opened this episode and what I was taught about agency is that's not the way I understood agency. Agency, that's not the way. And I still. Agency and belief in agency is one of the things I feel like I've taken with me after my exit from the church. Meaning that I believe that a ground of my morality personally is treating other people as autonomous agents who have the right to individual choices.
Kolby Reddish And those individual choices need to be respected. That's what I always understood from my time as a Mormon, that agency meant. I thought it was so important that we had a whole war in heaven over the issue. But I think it comes back to what we opened with from Elder Bednar is they don't really believe in agency. They don't really believe that members of the choice should, or, I'm sorry, members of the church should be making these choices. They think they need to make them for them by withholding information from them.
Nemo And it's all part of a broader pattern of infantilizing church members, which is a theme throughout the church's relationship with its members. And join us next week when I debate Kolby over the pros and cons of determinism and how much free choice we actually do have.
Kolby Reddish But for now, if we had it, if I had any choice to disagree with you, then maybe I would.
Guest 2 Yeah.
Nemo Julia, what are your thoughts on what's coming up?
Julia Well, in summary, like, I like all these thoughts, too. So I just think that we're. That the church. I'm not an active member right now, but I think members of the church are paying too much tithing. I think they are being paying on something that they shouldn't be paying on. I think it's really interesting in 1970 that they changed it from interest to income because that's. Those are not the same at all. And then the. What the church, what the church uses tithing for from that revelation, those are all being met. And they could still continue being met without tithing being given. So like, I just, I struggle with tithing.
Julia I really admire the members who, who work it out with their bishop to pay tithing to charitable organizations rather than to the church. I don't think the church is giving nearly as much as they should or could into to those entities. Whereas members can feel like their money's going somewhere better rather than like shell companies or abuse cover ups or different things like that. Like, I would rather not want to know that my money is going to help people rather than going to those other entities.
Nemo And your money isn't even going into a particularly generous social scene at the church. It's not even going into particularly generous church activities. Ward budgets are scrimped about and stake budgets are scrimped about. People are kind of often out of pocket themselves personally for putting activities on. The amount of activities the church puts on have massively decreased over the years.
Nemo They've just reduced the amount of time people can spend socializing at church again by trying to cram loads of stuff into two hours. The schedule change is not good for the community of the church. So it's this weird thing where people are still investing the same amount in their church. They're still paying into their church. If you want to view it kind of that way for a moment, maybe the personal blessings in their lives are still the same. But what the church is offering them for the money they're putting in, it's like the product is getting worse. I would argue from a community perspective and from a what the church is actually spending the money on perspective in terms of facilities.
Julia Yeah. Okay. Well, Kolby, do you want to close us out?
Kolby Reddish I probably should, right?
Julia Probably.
Nemo You have 50 seconds.
Kolby Reddish Excellent. Well, thank you again for joining us on today's episode where we looked at the history of tithing for our second kind of deep dive on this issue. I have two quick requests as we wrap up here today. If you value the LDS discussion series and you want to see it continue, please consider supporting the Open Stories foundation and Mormon Stories. These episodes require a lot of work, substantial research and preparation on both Julia and Nemo's parts. I just basically show up and we are compensated for the work that we do in making this series happen. So if it's important to you, remember that your donations do make it possible for us to keep doing it.
Kolby Reddish And we promise that we will never threaten your eternal salvation if you don't donate. Second, we want your feedback. So you can email us@mormonstoriesmail.com or leave a comment on YouTube, and we are very open to your feedback and things that you would like to see more of, including future topics. So thank you again for joining me on today's episode of Mormon Stories podcast, LDS Discussions Edition. Be good to each other, be kind to each other, and we'll see you next time.
Transcript © 2026 John P. Dehlin. All rights reserved. Brief quotations are welcome with attribution and a link to mormonstories.org; all other use requires written permission.