Jana Reiss - New Tithing Study

[readstoomuch]

If that generation is more inclined to pay tithing, but on net, it is still commendable.  Since I remember plenty of inactive people when I was doing fast offerings in the early 70s in the sketchier part of town (or the whole ward for that matter), maybe they are no more inactive than any other generation.  They would rather text than ever call and definitely are different to work with.  Mobility also seems to be no problem.  I'll just quit my job because ___________happened and get another job or move in with my parents.  That is some of my experience at work with them.  

As far as Tacenda, second outlandish statement I have caught in the last week.  I find the Church very frugal with how they spend money.  Sometimes to a fault.  My wife is an officer in a condo association and I have served with a nonprofit.  We have seen some interesting things with how money was spent.  I think the Church does well.  I just went to the lights at Temple Square and was well pleased.  We are not from Utah, so we appreciated them as I think most people do.  

I am going to take the opportunity to say something about hungry people.  We are finding that the missionaries and members are slowly taking over the food bank locally.  We have run a program there and the community has come to rely on the Church to staff the food bank.  They don`t seem to get many others to volunteer.  They have a few employees, but it is mostly volunteer.  A few other churches help out and a few wouldn't participate because the food drives are manned and collected for the most part by the Lds Church before it goes to the food bank.  The Bishops Storehouse has been very good in working with our organization.  Why don`t the non-lds people and secular folks help out more?  Why aren't they out collecting food or sorting at the food bank?  

Sometimes the hungry children outside the US come up.  I believe there is a Liahona Foundation that works especially in South America.  Yes, there are hungry children and the local leaders have often said, don`t send more food or money without us administering it.  They found they had too many people trying to just live off of the Church and not actually take part and be part of the gospel.  They wanted programs that they could run and use the way that they felt the need should be met.  We in the United States sometimes think we know what the rest of the world needs.  What it seems like we need and people in general need are opportunities to succeed and be productive.  I think that is where fast offerings and programs like the Perpetual Education Fund work.  We as Latter-day saints do these things well.  

[Calm]

45 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'll just change my quote. I've seen it, I know someone who works for the church and sets up for holiday concerts etc. I know that the sets cost thousands, just to be thrown out, and at other times older pianos, etc. But I know this is from me and not this individual, so take it for what it's worth. But that's what I mean, can't they simplify like they tell us to simplify, reuse items?

There is a reason why book publishers tell booksellers to tear off the cover and trash mass market books that don't sellrather than returning them.  Keeping inventory or recycling can end up being more expensive than creating new product.  Whether this was true in these past cases or not, I don't know, but it would be wiser not to make assumptions if you don't know why decisions were made and only know of part of the picture.

IIRC, you would prefer that janitors be given jobs and paid by the Church rather than simplifying there and using volunteers.  If so, why do you see the jobs created by using new products as wasteful, but janitorial jobs not?

Edited January 1, 2017 by Calm

[Teancum]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I actually have no problem with you disagreeing with how the Church uses its funds.  People have every right to their opinion.
But I don't see any evidence of waste, and certainly no evidence that they violate any scriptural principles.
In other words, I may think they could use the money better too, but I see nothing morally wrong identifiable in their use of funds.

The "it could have gone to the poor" argument always comes back to:
Matt 26:7 There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat.
8 But when his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste?
9 For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor.
10 When Jesus understood it, he said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me.
11 For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.
12 For in that she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial.
13 Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.
 

The passage is a horrible argument to make your point  The church is not Jesus nor does this passage excuse the Church of Jesus Christ as well as all believers of doing much to relieve suffering.  It was an isolated case.  

 

Many could argue that hiring ambitious and large ad agencies, building malls, high end apartments complexes and townhouses, acquiring hundreds of thousansd of acres of land in Florida for future real estate development and so on I spent wasteful and certainly not feeding the naked and hungry.   Others may argue these are good investments so the church can do such things in the future.  But this is not the topic of this thread really.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, readstoomuch said:

Sometimes the hungry children outside the US come up.  I believe there is a Liahona Foundation that works especially in South America.  Yes, there are hungry children and the local leaders have often said, don`t send more food or money without us administering it.  They found they had too many people trying to just live off of the Church and not actually take part and be part of the gospel.  They wanted programs that they could run and use the way that they felt the need should be met.  We in the United States sometimes think we know what the rest of the world needs.  What it seems like we need and people in general need are opportunities to succeed and be productive.  I think that is where fast offerings and programs like the Perpetual Education Fund work.  We as Latter-day saints do these things well.  

There have been reports of in the past local economies being trashed by the Church coming in to help with welfare, short term masses of help led to longer term more hunger and poverty.  That is why the Church works these days by incorporating the local community so change for the better is not only sustainable, but helpful and not damaging.  From the way I have heard church representatives such as Sharon Eubank speak of humanitarian projects, the Church approach these days is to find something that is working now to provide immediate help (thus they immediately on hearing of the need provided a mass donation of money for refugees to a local Bishop in Turkey iirc, and then took the time to examine what were the longer term needs they could help with).

Not educating oneself about how, why and what the Church is doing in its humanitarian work and instead assuming it is doing wrong because there are still hungry people out there is actually harming those in need imo as it discourages people from giving to some very effective programs.

Too many people want to feel better about what they are doing and end up hurting the person, family, community they are trying to help when they don't take the time to study out the problem and find solutions that result in positive growth and not turmoil.  This occurs at all levels of class and country.  Charity is not about giving people something, but loving them.  This requires much more effort than just sending out trucks of food or writing checks.

[thatjimguy]

 

21 minutes ago, readstoomuch said:

If that generation is more inclined to pay tithing, but on net, it is still commendable. 

If the spirit is cool with them, it is more than commendable...it is correct.

If anyone feels guilty for not paying 10% of gross after conferring with the spirit that they were ok. That guilt is not guilt. That is peer pressure.

This whole study alone makes the social implication that 10% of gross is the only correct way to pay tithing.

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, thatjimguy said:

This whole study alone makes the social implication that 10% of gross is the only correct way to pay tithing.

Highly unlikely imo that Jana Reiss, who is spearheading this research, think gross is the only correct way to pay tithing.

Edited January 1, 2017 by Calm

[thatjimguy]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

Highly unlikely imo that Jana Reiss, who is spearheading this research, think gross is the only correct way to pay tithing.

Maybe that is true, but the idea of the research implies it to me. Why should it concern anyone what others pay of tithing other than to assume that the other side is wrong? You can even hear it in the comments in this thread.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I'll just change my quote. I've seen it, I know someone who works for the church and sets up for holiday concerts etc. I know that the sets cost thousands, just to be thrown out, and at other times older pianos, etc. But I know this is from me and not this individual, so take it for what it's worth. But that's what I mean, can't they simplify like they tell us to simplify, reuse items? There are members in this church who are going hungry, they should be helped along with many others. Lights at some of the temples do go for thousands also (I'm probably part of the problem since I love to go see them). There is so much waste, IMO. Can I have an opinion? I will definitely change my post to show that of course. I have my dad's cynacism in me. Growing up, he would say things similar. He would wonder why the church couldn't build places for people like my mom, who had Alzheimers. We could never find a decent place. Of course the funds weren't there all the time either. 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/of-things-that-matter-most?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2008/10/let-him-do-it-with-simplicity?lang=eng

https://www.mormonchannel.org/listen/series/mormon-channel-daily-audio/how-to-simplify-your-life

 

I have never seen a dime wasted, and I am familiar with temple finances as well ward and stake finances, a former bishop, and stake auditor.

The church is VERY rigorous on following up on every POSSIBLE suspicious expenditure, and does an incredible job with helping those who are less fortunate

[rongo]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Highly unlikely imo that Jana Reiss, who is spearheading this research, think gross is the only correct way to pay tithing.

Highly unlikely that Jana Reiss thinks gross is the correct way to pay tithing. Or that she doesn't have problems with how the Church spends money.  

I pay on gross, and I also pay on my gross "tax refund." I don't pay federal withholding, but get thousands "back" in February because of federal tax policy (I would happily do without that if politicians changed it so that we weren't using the tax code to pay billions in EIC, child tax credits, etc.). I consider that to be income as much as my paycheck  income. When I am retired, I'll pay on my pension and on my social security, even though one can rationalize that "I've already paid tithing on that," since in paying gross, I paid on the money that went into the pension, and the money before FICA took it. For me, I would just rather not monkey around with finding ways to nickle and dime the Lord. My wife doesn't work, I am our sole income, and we have four kids, and we feel that the Lord has indeed opened the windows of heaven so that we don't have room to receive his blessings. 

In my experience, you are either a tithe-payer, or none at all. Whether one pays on net or gross, it is very obvious who the tithe-payers are and aren't. There are very few partial-tithe payers, although there are always some.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I have never seen a dime wasted, and I am familiar with temple finances as well ward and stake finances, a former bishop, and stake auditor.

The church is VERY rigorous on following up on every POSSIBLE suspicious expenditure, and does an incredible job with helping those who are less fortunate

Paying thousands for a set for a few nights for a Christmas program isn't waste? I guess I'm losing it or very out of touch.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, thatjimguy said:

Maybe that is true, but the idea of the research implies it to me. Why should it concern anyone what others pay of tithing other than to assume that the other side is wrong? You can even hear it in the comments in this thread.

Lot of people are curious about the what, how, and why that people think.

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Historically number 1 can be demonstrated as patently false.  There have been times the church has wasted money and even to the brink of financial ruin. Some in its most early days when it was heavily in debt.  Some due to establishing Zion in the west.   Some due to the government pressure and seizure of property over the issue of Polygamy.  

A most recent example was the overly ambitious building program in the President McKay administration as overseen by President Moyle.   This resulted in the last years the church published financial statements and may have been one of the motivating factors for closing the books to the public including tithe paying members. 

Now we have no way to know whether the church wastes money or not.   How can one find evidence when the evidence is not available?  But my guess is since the late 1950s and early 1960s when they brought in N Eldon Tanner to clean things up there likely has been little waste and the church has become what you term financially thrifty.  

Agree with you about the history.
I am not as cynical about the present.  My understanding is that the Church is now debt free and pays for next years budget with this year's income/dividends etc so they are always a year ahead.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 12/30/2016 at 6:51 PM, bsjkki said:

We used to always pay tithing on gross but recently switched to net with plans to pay tithing on our retirement and social security as we use it. I am at peace with the decision after stewing about it. It's difficult to pay 10 percent on something that you only see 50 percent of. We pay tithing on the money we "see" and I quit thinking about it. 

Correct.  That is what Mormon farmers always did -- 10% of the increase (net), if they got an increase in that particular year.  For the truly wealthy, this question need not come up at all.

[BCSpace]

Here's how I do it:

1) If we are being governed by a Left wing administration, I pay on net because I consider my tax dollars to have been stolen.

2) If we are being governed by a Right wing administration that has reduced taxes and the size of the welfare state, I pay tithing on gross.

This could of course explain why millennials have been paying on net recently.  If true, we hope that will change shortly.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

The passage is a horrible argument to make your point  The church is not Jesus nor does this passage excuse the Church of Jesus Christ as well as all believers of doing much to relieve suffering.  It was an isolated case.

Many could argue that hiring ambitious and large ad agencies, building malls, high end apartments complexes and townhouses, acquiring hundreds of thousansd of acres of land in Florida for future real estate development and so on I spent wasteful and certainly not feeding the naked and hungry.   Others may argue these are good investments so the church can do such things in the future.  But this is not the topic of this thread really.

Jesus thought that investing funds was a wise use of them and he said so (Matt 25:14-30, harshly condemnatory of those who fail to invest).  Being a wise steward is one of the best ways to help the poor and unfortunate.  Another way (instead of simply giving him a proverbial "fish") is to teach a man to fish and feed him for life.  The LDS Church follows those methods and does more good per capita than other religious groups.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 minute ago, BCSpace said:

Here's how I do it:

1) If we are being governed by a Left wing administration, I pay on net because I consider my tax dollars to have been stolen.

2) If we are being governed by a Right wing administration that has reduced taxes and the size of the welfare state, I pay tithing on gross.

This could of course explain why millennials have been paying on net recently.  If true, we hope that will change shortly.

Yeh, but what do you do when a just administration is in power -- given that both Left and Right are so thoroughly venal, corrupt, and wasteful?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Paying thousands for a set for a few nights for a Christmas program isn't waste? I guess I'm losing it or very out of touch.

How many "thousands"?

Did you see the invoice and who or what organization paid the bill?  Was it an individual member or a member's foundation who paid the bill?  Was the program stipulated as part of a gifting program from a 501c-3 organization?

 Have you seen the budget for the organization and where the funds came from?

How many people saw the program?   How much does comparable advertising run in the area?

Are you an expert in how much comparable sets usually cost?

How many investigators resulted from the performances?  How are these numbers comparable to other advertising the church does?

Edited January 1, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

How many DVDs are produced and sold for these productions (assuming I know. Which one you mean)?  Would a less polished performance yield attention or apathy or even mocking.

[Tacenda]

MF and Calm, you both have good points. I guess I needed to look at it like that. 

[BCSpace]

31 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yeh, but what do you do when a just administration is in power -- given that both Left and Right are so thoroughly venal, corrupt, and wasteful?

I just look at how Conservative it is.  Conservatism is an accurate reflection of LDS doctrine and in that case, the more Conservative an administration is, the less worried I am about the personal corruption of politicians.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, BCSpace said:

I just look at how Conservative it is.  Conservatism is an accurate reflection of LDS doctrine and in that case, the more Conservative an administration is, the less worried I am about the personal corruption of politicians.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yeh, but what do you do when a just administration is in power -- given that both Left and Right are so thoroughly venal, corrupt, and wasteful?

If there were a just government in power it would be lambasted for just things that people are too ignorant to understand and most people would believe it and still think it venal, corrupt, and wasteful.

[BCSpace]

Quite serious, yes.  The difference is, as opposed to your view, I am in complete harmony with the doctrine...oh wait...you don't believe the LDS Church even has doctrine, right?

[Teancum]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Jesus thought that investing funds was a wise use of them and he said so (Matt 25:14-30, harshly condemnatory of those who fail to invest).  Being a wise steward is one of the best ways to help the poor and unfortunate.  Another way (instead of simply giving him a proverbial "fish") is to teach a man to fish and feed him for life.  The LDS Church follows those methods and does more good per capita than other religious groups.

I have no question the church does a lot of good things for many people.  And often when people complain that the direct humanitarian aid is likely low compared to the assets and annual income of the church I point out that one simply must included fast offering assistance in this which most don't when being critical.  This raises. The number of caring for the poor by a likely very large amount.

However that said I question the validity of your last sentence and how you can substianet this claim as the church does not publish financial information.  

 

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I have never seen a dime wasted, and I am familiar with temple finances as well ward and stake finances, a former bishop, and stake auditor.

The church is VERY rigorous on following up on every POSSIBLE suspicious expenditure, and does an incredible job with helping those who are less fortunate

Yet this only speaks to the Ward and stake level. I have been both a bishop and a state auditor as well

  You and I nor any member in the rank and file have any idea what goes on at the highest levels of Church expenditures.