This is personal interpretation, and I still say that the story supports manditory tithe. As I have stated on several other posts I am mearly explaining why I believe in what I believe because someone else questioned it. I have no intention to convince you that I am right, simply that my belief can be supported through the Bible, which I have done.

I know that I will probably never convince you that my faith is right, nor will you convince me of yours. So, while I will gladly discuss and explain my faith, I will not try to persuade you it is correct. So please do not try to convince me I am incorrect.

Just to make clear, I am not trying to convince anyone of any belief. I am not a Christain, nor any sort of theist, although the Christian religion in which I was raised DID teach that tithing was required by the Bible. I imagine there is a strong case to be made for tithing based on Biblical sources, just that this is not one of those -- since it seems to have nothing at all to do with the traditional "10% of your increase" but instead seems more related to the communal economy of the early Christian Church.

BTW, welcome here and I hope you stick around.

I agree with this. However, the understanding I have is that this comunal living (or the Law of Consecration as it is called in the LDS faith) is the Higher form of the tithe, and was required, as I have explained.

In the early days of the LDS church this same Law of Consecration was commnded by God and the sainst tride to live it. But there were those who found teh doctrine to difficult, and when it became obvious that the majority of the people could not do it, it was taken and replaced with the lesser form; tithing. (This same form of taking higher law away happened at the time of Moses - Hebrews 4:2)

So, both tithe and Consecration have the same principle: a manditory payment to the Lord, to be handled by the leaders of the Church. The difference is that a Tithe is 10%, while concecration is 100%.