The cultural LDS view on tithing being 10% of a wage-earners gross or net income doesn't make sense and isn't supported by scripture. One thing I've tried to do is differentiate between actual LDS doctrine (i.e. teachings in scriptures or by prophets or apostles) and cultural LDS doctrine (i.e. comments made in ward, Ensign articles, teachings by seventys, etc.). Even to a TBM, cultural LDS doctrine isn't binding on anyone.
With that in mind, consider these cultural LDS doctrines on tithing:
1) If you want gross blessings, pay gross tithing. Net tithing only gives net blessings.
2) Pay tithing on the amount you want to earn next year and you will earn that amount next year. (Teaching recently given by President Nelson's wife)
3) Pay tithing before you provide for your family. If you have to choose between tithing and food for your starving children, pay tithing. (Article in Ensign and talk by seventy in general conference).
Now compare actual doctrines on tithing:
1) First presidency letter from 1970 on tithing (basically says nobody has the right/authority to say more than what is said therein)
2) D&C 120 (Rock Waterman's blog gave me a lot of insight on how words were used when this revelation was received, as opposed to how we use words today)
3) JST Genesis 14:39
4) 1 Timothy 5:8
You will quickly see that the cultural teachings on tithing don't hold up to actual doctrine on tithing.
For some reason, many church leaders seem to want more tithing from members (see D&C 121:36-45). For example, Elder Holland gave a talk on tithing where he used selective quotes from earlier church leaders. However, when you look up the original quotes you found that Elder Holland omitted portions of the quotes to change the meaning, without notifying the reader. Why would someone be dishonest if they are teaching the true and correct doctrine of tithing?
For me personally, I have put tithing to the test using Alma's test of faith described in Alma 32. I found that when I paid tithing using cultural LDS doctrines that I made a certain income, was constantly stressed about finances, and regularly resorted to playing the credit card cash advance game to keep up. A few years later I put the true doctrine of tithing to the test using the test described in Alma 32. I tried paying tithing on just my increase rather than net or gross. I found that my income was larger than it had been before, I was less stressed about finances, and I no longer had to play the credit card cash advance game. As I've put my family's needs first (thus giving the church a smaller amount of money each year) my income has continued to increase and my financial stress has gone down. Alma's test bore fruit for me: by both objective (gross yearly income) and subjective (stress about finances) measures, paying tithing on increase is a true doctrine.
My personal opinion is that cultural LDS doctrine on tithing is wrong and the Lord will have his judgment. We know the Book of Mormon is written for our day. Take a look at 2 Nephi 13:14-15:
14 The Lord will enter into judgment with the ancients of his people and the princes thereof; for ye have eaten up the vineyard and the spoil of the poor in your houses.
15 What mean ye? Ye beat my people to pieces, and grind the faces of the poor, saith the Lord God of Hosts.
In the church today, who are the "ancients of his people and princes thereof"? I'll give you a hint, we call some of them "Elder" as a lifetime title and stand when they enter the room, just like we would stand for a king or prince. It's kind of interesting that we never hear in General Conference what it means when the Lord says that the ancients of the people grind the faces of the poor. My personal opinion is that telling someone to pay tithing rather than feeding their child is grinding the face of the poor. I think most of church leaders teachings (e.g. get married early, have kids while you are still in school, etc) are designed to keep people in the church even if it keeps many of them poor for their entire lives.
Finally, when it comes to tithing settlement each year I generally am not interested in having the above conversation with my bishop (and I suspect most bishop's don't want to have it either). To avoid it, I choose to give to the church use anonymous methods. The church has a way you can do it anonymously so only Salt Lake can see it (and your Bishop if he calls). The other way is to truly give anonymously (so not even Salt Lake knows) using a donor advised fund (read more at
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/inves ... le-giving/) which are available through many brokerages. My bishop has seen 0 donations on my account for years. One bishop asked a bit about it (he thought there was a clerical error) and I told him that we give anonymously. That ended the discussion.
I find this kind of funny. Not laughing at you Corsair, but the situation makes me laugh.