Good suggestion, George!
My efforts in the smile.amazon endeavor have been going to Oregon Abuse Advocates and Survivors in Service, OAASIS, for quite a few years now so probs won’t be changing but for those not already contributing to Spectrum, this is an excellent way of doing so.
Thanks for the quotes…I’m sure there are plenty more!
When reading this type of tongue-lashing, shaming, and threatening people with being cursed by God, it is very disturbing and quite stomach-turning. It sounds like the health and wealth “preachers” of today.
There is more that could be said, but…
I found it curious that Canright was used as basically the scapegoat for the SB system. James and Ellen were always in control. If they didn’t like the system, it would have never happened. Because, of course, if worse came to worse, Ellen could always have a vision to put down the plan.
An addendum:
This is from an article here:https://stewardship.adventist.org/page672
"There was renewed study of the Systematic Benevolence plan in 1876 when D. M. Canright published two articles in the Review and Herald . In these articles he urged that God required one tenth of our income.5 He defined this as “one-tenth of all we make during the year with our means and our labor.”6 As early as 1861 the Systematic Benevolence plan had incorporated one aspect of tithing. The amount asked of those who owned property was set at 10 percent of the increase in value.
The 1876 plan was discussed at a special session of the General Conference early in the year. It was voted that all should “devote one tenth of all their income from whatever source to the cause of God.”7 Bible studies and meetings were conducted throughout the rest of 1876 and 1877. In 1878 a tract was prepared and titled Systematic Benevolence or the Bible Plan for Supporting the Ministry .8 It carefully explained from the Bible the tithing plan and detailed the significant change in Systematic Benevolence. While the 1859 Systematic Benevolence plan had focused on the importance of systematic giving based on 1 Cor 16:2, the 1878 revisions actually defined the Bible plan for how the amount was to be There was renewed study of the Systematic Benevolence plan in 1876 when D. M. Canright published two articles in the Review and Herald . In these articles he urged that God required one tenth of our income.5 He defined this as “one-tenth of all we make during the year with our means and our labor.”6 As early as 1861 the Systematic Benevolence plan had incorporated one aspect of tithing. The amount asked of those who owned property was set at 10 percent of the increase in value.
The 1876 plan was discussed at a special session of the General Conference early in the year. It was voted that all should “devote one tenth of all their income from whatever source to the cause of God.”7 Bible studies and meetings were conducted throughout the rest of 1876 and 1877. In 1878 a tract was prepared and titled Systematic Benevolence or the Bible Plan for Supporting the Ministry .8 It carefully explained from the Bible the tithing plan and detailed the significant change in Systematic Benevolence. While the 1859 Systematic Benevolence plan had focused on the importance of systematic giving based on 1 Cor 16:2, the 1878 revisions actually defined the Bible plan for how the amount was to be determined.
The new plan was implemented beginning the first week of 1879.9 The new plan came at just the right time for the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Foreign missions and the rapid expansion of the church were greatly enhanced by the increased resources that came in through following the Bible tithing plan.
It may be surprising to some that it took so many years to settle the Bible tithing teaching of Seventh-day Adventists. It is important to understand that God led step by step. It was God’s desire that Adventists base their giving on the instruction given in the Bible. Therefore while Ellen White’s visions supported the Systematic Benevolence 1859 and the 1876 Tithing Plan, the visions did not take the lead. God waited until His church would study the matter from the Bible and build a doctrinal foundation that was preeminently scriptural."
I don’t think this was a doctrine that was “preeminently scriptural”, but I would say that about several SDA doctrines.
Hi @GeorgeTichy, thanks for supporting us through the AmazonSmile program! We appreciate it. We have a standing ad on our website (our actual website, not Discourse) that is always visible on the right-hand side of each webpage (see attached screenshot). But we can make an effort to promote it in other ways as well.
How would this change the SDA doctrines that are here now? Would there be an SDA church without resorting to extra-biblical beliefs that came from EGW et al.? I’m just trying to picture there actually being an SDA church, if the Bible only was used, and what would that look like?
If we use the New Covenant directives for tithing, it seems that giving to those who are preaching the Gospel, and helping widows and orphans (or could be expanded to anyone, IMO) who needs financial or material assistance are the only things that I remember off hand for giving. There is no “set” amount for giving. There is a lot of freedom under the New Covenant. 
History can’t be erased, therefore we are stuck with our SDA history and with the couple of “fake doctrines” that were created based on the SOP and not on the Bible.
I don’t have a suggestion on how to resolve this problem. Error have to be admitted and corrected. The Church is never, ever, going to do that.
I am comfortable considering myself a “Biblical Adventist,” and I am not bothered by those who prefer to be “Whiteist Adventists,” as long as they “don’t mess with me” (as Nancy Pelosi said to the reporter today… 
)
I have the blessing of being a member of a local church where this is a non-issue. But… , yes, most SDAs have a different situation. Not sure there is a solution for this mess.
Monies given in an enveloped checked “Tithe” all go to the local
Conference Treasurer.
Church laws indicate the allowable use of them.
One is to pay the local pastor and church school teachers. Along
with Conference Expenses. This ALSO includes Insurance, and
monies set aside for Retirement.
Monies given for local church expense remain in the local church
and pay for the expenses of operating it and keeping the doors open,
and the lights on.
ALL Denominations have the same need to devise a Method of paying
for Pastors and Administration costs. There are a number of different
methods.
However, I do know of one pastor of a non-SDA Saturday church who
is on Disability and is a “self-employed” Pastor who lives on his disability
and pastors a church with both black and white members in Dublin, GA.
From what I could gather from him there are many non-SDA Sabbath
keepers in Georgia, but are in jobs that move them around to where the
jobs are. His church is what is called “Independent”.
One year I gave their little library a set of Uncle Arthur’s Bible Story set.
One little girl seeing them was excited and said, “I saw them in the
dentist office.”
I was mostly UNSUCCESSFUL with getting the Dublin SDA group
interested in becoming acquainted with them. But I tried!!
they had their Sabbath services at 2pm in the afternoon, so would have
been easy for some SDA members to have attended and made friends.
George – I am sure you have the SAME situation with your Baptist
friends. SDA’s stay away and do not become friendly.
I have been unable to find New Covenant directives for tithing. Can you point them out?
Yes, you are correct. There are no tithing directives…I should have used the word “giving”.
I’d add that the more often one of her quotes gets used, the more shrill and extreme our translation seems to become. Usually it goes from “that’s a nice thought” to “Ellen White said it so you have to do it,” and it ends up “But if you mentally contort yourself, it could apply to EVERY SITUATION EVER. So do that even though such a reading blatantly contradicts Scripture. Also throw these red books at people.”
Like the quote efcee had above: “God designs that the exercise of benevolence shall be purely voluntary, not having recourse even to eloquent appeals to excite sympathy.” Now it gets read as “Of course tithe is voluntary! God designs that the required, compulsary tithe should be giving happily and voluntarily, otherwise you’re a selfish wannabe thief for making us beg.”
(And I think DEFCON counts down, so 1 is most severe, but I know what you mean.)
Thanks…good to know! 10 seems worse, but apparently not.
Adventists have chosen to pick a few Jewish dietary laws to follow and sometimes make the argument that the belief/custom is Biblically sound and defensible. When it comes to accepting the Jewish prescription to tithe, I imagine it has been even a bit easier to accept since some other Christian churches tithe. As pointed out in the article St. Paul admonishes regular and generous giving, but without a percentage related to income.
I don’t know about other Unions, but here in the Southern Union
area on the offering envelopes it is suggested 10% for Tithe.
But then there are ADDED % signs with numbers for additional
giving in several other Conference, Division, GC offerings.
So ACTUALLY adds up to at least another 5% or so.
Ed, I appreciate both you response and the article. My historical frustration may lead to flippant comments like these, but these are not directed at people, but rather ideas. I understand that people may have complex motivations and understanding that I simply don’t have access to judge. My comment was about my perception of the article. It seems like you were hanging the entire problem of Adventist tithing on D. M. Canright, and pinning it against the SB that Ellen White allegidly preferred. And that’s what my objection was focused on. But, point taken, dishonest is probably too flippant, especially given that we likely agree more than we don’t in this subject.
As far as the history disclose goes, maybe there’s value to it, maybe there’s not. I think it would have been more valuable 10 years ago when there greater number of Adventist who seemed some balance between loyalty and value, but most of the ones left are the loyal ones, and that’s the kind the present administrative structure seems to prefer, especially given their eschatological disposition.
In that sense, the Biblical nature of tithing for them is a form of participatory duty, and it’s promoted as such.
I did a sermon thirty something years ago on the topic and one of the radical points of that sermon was that it is NOT our duty to follow Jesus’ sayings merely because he said it. To clarify the point I was going to address, I gave the example of the healed person whom Jesus told to get his sacrificial animal, go to the priest, be declared clean, and then offer the sacrifice according to the law of Moses. Now, we don’t expect any who are healed in Christian times to follow the same instruction. Not everything Jesus said is applicable today.
Now, turning to Matthew 23:23, we apply the same logic. Because Jesus commended the Pharisees who paid tithe even of the herbs in their garden, it does not mean that we are under the same obligation today. This text is a major one for the tithe argument, but has a major flaw in it–it was spoken before the abolition of the laws of Moses, and it was spoken to Pharisees, and it was correct, just as was the instruction of the healed man to offer his sacrificial animal at the temple. The fact that Jesus spoke Matt. 23:23 is no directive that we are under obligation to follow what he says the Pharisees were under obligation to follow. Common sense and a bit of thought comes into play here.
Uncle Arthur’s book are most insidious in promoting the idea that the promise of Malachi 3:8-12 applies as a general rule for tithe-payers (Uggh!, Cringe!). I suppose you can get away with it in a children’s book, but the legacy of such error with failed expectations lingers a lifetime!
The family of Jesus were poor. So they were allowed 2 turtle doves as
praise and thank “offerings”. The poor man would be allowed this.
Perhaps someone might buy them for him.
I’m sure the widow’s 2 pennies were not tithe, but Jesus said that
hers was the larger offering.
YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES!
This is the best explanation of why OT compulsory Jewish tithing is not a NT Christian requirement.
