Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Fast Offerings


Recommended Posts

57 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't think so, but there's really no way to know since the church won't tell us.

There have been estimates that the church collects $6-$7 billion in tithing revenue each year. If all infrastructure was paid for through business venture funds then the church would be spending $6-$7 billion a year on humanitarian aid and other financial aid. It would also mean the church is incorrect in describing how tithing dollars are utilized.

 

To clarity, when I'm saying infrastructure I'm meaning the overhead cost of running the humanitarian projects.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, rongo said:

My commute is three miles. :) The church is less than one mile away. I actually don't listen to talk radio, and we don't have cable or satellite. It would annoy my wife if I listened to podcasts during family time at home (streaming audio or video are blocked at the school where I work). So what do we listen to? We have music, including a large set of records from the 60s and 70s --- and more modern CDs, of course. 

I know that many people (including most Church members) think my family is a fossil, but it has a lot of advantages. We spend a lot of family time together, and play games, read books, watch movies, play sports, etc. (I find that even most active LDS families spend very little actual family time together that is not watching TV). My kids will be among the few without any electronics addictions or porn problems (and yes, we do preemptively address these things, and aren't blithely ignorant of the realities of the modern world, school influences, etc.). 

I will see if I can listen to it later tonight. An executive summary would also be helpful . . . ;) 

"Books?"  What are these "books?"

 

I usually have 2 or 3 going at the same time.  Fossil, indeed.

 

 

Link to comment
22 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Rongo, Rongo, Rongo...how can you hate something you've never tried? Do you ever listen to talk radio or cable news? It's really no different except that there are myriad more topics to be discussed with a variety of guests and/or panels.

Do you have a way to listen while driving or working out or .... ? I have a 45 minute commute each way to work so it works great for me. But don't cut off the possibility.

Here are my notes (I want those 73 minutes of my life back! :) ). I will discuss some things later in the afternoon, if I can get to them. My editorial comments are in brackets below [   ]  

---

[“Faith transition podcast.” Oh, brother. Can there any good thing come out of Gina Colvin? And a shout out to John Dehlin. Awesome!]

 

The Madsens --- attorneys, pacifist anti-war/violence activists, labor activism. Colvin gushing: “I’m a bit of a leftie.” Product placement for online petitions they started --> financial transparency for the Church (2012) and conscientious objection ca. 9-11 invasion of Afghanistan.

 

Colvin: How did the Church adopt an American capitalist economic model?

 

1) polygamy ending forced mainstreaming of the Church

2) getting out of church debt led Church there

3) monetizing in-kind tithes and offerings

4) Smoot hearings

5) N. Eldon Tanner (Canadian oil executive) and Ezra Taft Benson in the 1960s

6) pre-Manifesto: LDS anti-US wars (let them kill themselves). Post-Manifesto: LDS super patriotic

 

Emulating an American capitalist economic model means by default that Church has to ignore its own scriptures.

 

Post-apocalypse, when it was clear that end wasn’t near, practical decision made to “keep the Church going as long as possible” --> every decision in the Church done corporately

 

Conflating church with kingdom: building the physical kingdom overran the church. Should be other way around, per Madsens.

 

Benson’s misguided “colonialist and racist” self-reliance emphasis: “The world seeks to take the person out of the slum. The Church takes the slum out of the person, and the person takes himself out of the slum.”

 

Church emphasis on paying tithing, even if then not enough for other needs evil.

 

Selective statistics. With only 20% activity, we never hear from the other 80% who tried tithing but couldn’t pay it. It’s assumed that they are inferior, wicked, and lazy.

 

Benson’s influence, cont’d: Ergo, we don’t need to provide welfare for the poor. If they’re following the gospel, they’ll be self-reliant and take care of themselves.

 

“This is Korihor, not King Benjamin”

 

Inactives fall by the wayside because the Church won’t meet their money and basics needs

 

Economic modeling in meetings: North American converts are worth more than 3rd World converts because they will provide more money [now, *that* would be a bombshell leak!]. This led to the better missionaries remaining stateside, and the worst going foreign because it is more important to have quality and quantity of converts in North America [you have got to be kidding me . . . on many levels]

 

Complaint: comparative activity budgets (based on actively-attending members) wrong and misguided. Why should North American wards get more budget money than tiny, inactive 3rd World units --- just because they have more active members? All that money would make all the difference in the poor units.

 

Malachi misused and abused by the Church and by Church leaders: he is talking to the priests, not to the rank-and-file members

 

To those who say that, once money is donated to the Church, we no longer have say in how it is spent: “how selfish!” They only care about their own salvation, not the salvation of others or they wouldn’t cede decision making over finances to the Church.

 

Widow’s mite: preceded by Christ railing against those who devour widows houses. The Church robs the poor and devours the widows’ houses by building churches and temples.

 

Loaves and fishes: don’t invest, just divvy everything out and have faith that it will work out. We would actually have more tithes and offerings if we did that, because people would be inspired [are they for real on this point?]. The corporate Church doesn’t inspire.

 

Outrage that bishops stand as gatekeepers to the temple based on tithing.

 

Colvin: So, what can we do?

 

We need to “save Jesus from the Church” (you and I spoke about this years ago, Gina)

 

Madsen the Younger: I’m cynical that anything will work at this point --- the Church is too far gone. Mechanisms and means have been put into place to shield the hierarchy from grassroots pressure.

 

Madsen the Elder: I’m optimistic. There is an “emerging movement” that shows promise. Church idolatry has to die. Law of Consecration is a “bait and switch.” [he identified this in the temple as his breaking point leading to his “faith transition”]

 

Colvin: What has to die?

 

It is dying. We need to tear down all intermediaries between the people and God. No more gatekeepers of the temple --- if people want to go, then they can go. It has to come from the margins and from the bottom up, and it has to be “communitarian” and “anti-authoritarian.”

 

The system favors yes-men [I’ve made this point, but from a different place from these three. To those who insist that the rising generation will lead to a surge of liberal, tolerant bishops that will drive change, I have pointed out that the type of men called into these positions are very much status quo and conservative vis a vis the Church. Even if society changes at the young levels, local leaders on up will continue to be non-radical, in my view].

 

Cafeteria Mormonism, individual preference Mormonism needs to replace the culture.

 

The corporate church served a purpose during the gathering, but the internet removes all need for a church corporation [Seriously?!?!]

 

We can’t overestimate the power of conversations like this, happening all over [the dissident factions in the Church misinterpret the perceived power within their echo chambers as being the main currents among the body of active members. This is delusional]

 

“Hinckley read the Book of Mormon incorrectly”

 

When fast offerings were changed in 1991 to go to HQ instead of staying local, this was a disaster. This needs to be repealed! Ironically, the former was a conservative stance, and the current is liberal, despite the Church’s otherwise ultra-conservative stance. This is all about control of money.

 

Madsen the Younger: 9-11 wars led to his “faith transition.”

[the discussion devolved into left-wing political sniping against the Church from here]

 

Madsen the Elder: “Right or wrong, I don’t share the values with my community any more” (Utah)

 

Colvin: Is the Church even worth saving?

 

The institution? No. If it conformed to our liberal view of how things should be? Yes.

 

A lot of things have to die: specifically, for example, the Word of Wisdom, Church discipline, tithing

 

 

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, rongo said:

Here are my notes (I want those 73 minutes of my life back! :) ). I will discuss some things later in the afternoon, if I can get to them. My editorial comments are in brackets below [   ]  

 

Loaves and fishes: don’t invest, just divvy everything out and have faith that it will work out. We would actually have more tithes and offerings if we did that, because people would be inspired [are they for real on this point?]. The corporate Church doesn’t inspire.

 

Well, I'm proud of you for trying.

Regarding the loaves and fishes, do you disagree that spending resources on the current needs of the church is a better strategy than planning to meet future needs?

Is there a scriptural model that justifies the church's current strategy over loaves and fishes model?

 

Link to comment

"When fast offerings were changed in 1991 to go to HQ instead of staying local, this was a disaster. This needs to be repealed! Ironically, the former was a conservative stance, and the current is liberal, despite the Church’s otherwise ultra-conservative stance. This is all about control of money. "

 

This would mean my ward alone would have about a $90,000 shortfall in assistance that could be given.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, rongo said:

Here are my notes (I want those 73 minutes of my life back! :) ). I will discuss some things later in the afternoon, if I can get to them. My editorial comments are in brackets below [   ]  

---

[“Faith transition podcast.” Oh, brother. Can there any good thing come out of Gina Colvin? And a shout out to John Dehlin. Awesome!]

 

 

 

The Madsens --- attorneys, pacifist anti-war/violence activists, labor activism. Colvin gushing: “I’m a bit of a leftie.” Product placement for online petitions they started --> financial transparency for the Church (2012) and conscientious objection ca. 9-11 invasion of Afghanistan.

 

 

 

Colvin: How did the Church adopt an American capitalist economic model?

 

 

 

1) polygamy ending forced mainstreaming of the Church

 

2) getting out of church debt led Church there

 

3) monetizing in-kind tithes and offerings

 

4) Smoot hearings

 

5) N. Eldon Tanner (Canadian oil executive) and Ezra Taft Benson in the 1960s

 

6) pre-Manifesto: LDS anti-US wars (let them kill themselves). Post-Manifesto: LDS super patriotic

 

 

 

Emulating an American capitalist economic model means by default that Church has to ignore its own scriptures.

 

 

 

Post-apocalypse, when it was clear that end wasn’t near, practical decision made to “keep the Church going as long as possible” --> every decision in the Church done corporately

 

 

 

Conflating church with kingdom: building the physical kingdom overran the church. Should be other way around, per Madsens.

 

 

 

Benson’s misguided “colonialist and racist” self-reliance emphasis: “The world seeks to take the person out of the slum. The Church takes the slum out of the person, and the person takes himself out of the slum.”

 

 

 

Church emphasis on paying tithing, even if then not enough for other needs evil.

 

 

 

Selective statistics. With only 20% activity, we never hear from the other 80% who tried tithing but couldn’t pay it. It’s assumed that they are inferior, wicked, and lazy.

 

 

 

Benson’s influence, cont’d: Ergo, we don’t need to provide welfare for the poor. If they’re following the gospel, they’ll be self-reliant and take care of themselves.

 

 

 

“This is Korihor, not King Benjamin”

 

 

 

Inactives fall by the wayside because the Church won’t meet their money and basics needs

 

 

 

Economic modeling in meetings: North American converts are worth more than 3rd World converts because they will provide more money [now, *that* would be a bombshell leak!]. This led to the better missionaries remaining stateside, and the worst going foreign because it is more important to have quality and quantity of converts in North America [you have got to be kidding me . . . on many levels]

 

 

 

Complaint: comparative activity budgets (based on actively-attending members) wrong and misguided. Why should North American wards get more budget money than tiny, inactive 3rd World units --- just because they have more active members? All that money would make all the difference in the poor units.

 

 

 

Malachi misused and abused by the Church and by Church leaders: he is talking to the priests, not to the rank-and-file members

 

 

 

To those who say that, once money is donated to the Church, we no longer have say in how it is spent: “how selfish!” They only care about their own salvation, not the salvation of others or they wouldn’t cede decision making over finances to the Church.

 

 

 

Widow’s mite: preceded by Christ railing against those who devour widows houses. The Church robs the poor and devours the widows’ houses by building churches and temples.

 

 

 

Loaves and fishes: don’t invest, just divvy everything out and have faith that it will work out. We would actually have more tithes and offerings if we did that, because people would be inspired [are they for real on this point?]. The corporate Church doesn’t inspire.

 

 

 

Outrage that bishops stand as gatekeepers to the temple based on tithing.

 

 

 

Colvin: So, what can we do?

 

 

 

We need to “save Jesus from the Church” (you and I spoke about this years ago, Gina)

 

 

 

Madsen the Younger: I’m cynical that anything will work at this point --- the Church is too far gone. Mechanisms and means have been put into place to shield the hierarchy from grassroots pressure.

 

 

 

Madsen the Elder: I’m optimistic. There is an “emerging movement” that shows promise. Church idolatry has to die. Law of Consecration is a “bait and switch.” [he identified this in the temple as his breaking point leading to his “faith transition”]

 

 

 

Colvin: What has to die?

 

 

 

It is dying. We need to tear down all intermediaries between the people and God. No more gatekeepers of the temple --- if people want to go, then they can go. It has to come from the margins and from the bottom up, and it has to be “communitarian” and “anti-authoritarian.”

 

 

 

The system favors yes-men [I’ve made this point, but from a different place from these three. To those who insist that the rising generation will lead to a surge of liberal, tolerant bishops that will drive change, I have pointed out that the type of men called into these positions are very much status quo and conservative vis a vis the Church. Even if society changes at the young levels, local leaders on up will continue to be non-radical, in my view].

 

 

 

Cafeteria Mormonism, individual preference Mormonism needs to replace the culture.

 

 

 

The corporate church served a purpose during the gathering, but the internet removes all need for a church corporation [Seriously?!?!]

 

 

 

We can’t overestimate the power of conversations like this, happening all over [the dissident factions in the Church misinterpret the perceived power within their echo chambers as being the main currents among the body of active members. This is delusional]

 

 

 

“Hinckley read the Book of Mormon incorrectly”

 

 

 

When fast offerings were changed in 1991 to go to HQ instead of staying local, this was a disaster. This needs to be repealed! Ironically, the former was a conservative stance, and the current is liberal, despite the Church’s otherwise ultra-conservative stance. This is all about control of money.

 

 

 

Madsen the Younger: 9-11 wars led to his “faith transition.”

 

[the discussion devolved into left-wing political sniping against the Church from here]

 

 

 

Madsen the Elder: “Right or wrong, I don’t share the values with my community any more” (Utah)

 

 

 

Colvin: Is the Church even worth saving?

 

 

 

The institution? No. If it conformed to our liberal view of how things should be? Yes.

 

 

 

A lot of things have to die: specifically, for example, the Word of Wisdom, Church discipline, tithing

 

 

 

 

 

Well at least you gave it a try! If anything else, some podcasts put people to sleep. ;)

Rongo, I do like how you're open to things and that it's not all black and white. Thanks for all you do to help those that struggle.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 

Regarding the loaves and fishes, do you disagree that spending resources on the current needs of the church is a better strategy than planning to meet future needs?

Is there a scriptural model that justifies the church's current strategy over loaves and fishes model?

 

Both models exist in the scriptures.

 

Joseph interpreted a dream of 7 fat cows and 7 skinny cows.

Christ told us to consider the lilies of the field.

Christ told us that a wise builder would count the cost before beginning work on a tower.

Lehi took food with him on the boat for his journey to the new world, and more than just what was needed for the journey.

Christ did multiply the loaves and fishes.

 

etc

 

Link to comment
On 3/16/2017 at 4:45 PM, rongo said:

ERMD:

Bishop Burton explained to our stake that it has always been this way. In other words, this does not represent a change in policy or practice. There is only one checking account for the Church, and all donations go into that account. There are internal categories (e.g., tithing, fast offerings, humanitarian, etc.), but they are for bookkeeping purposes.  So it has always been technically inaccurate to consider shortages at the ward or stake level to be "covered" by moving money over from different units.

He also explained to us that since 2007, North America has been a net drain on fast offering donations (net shortage), while the Third World has actually been a net provider of fast offerings to the global church (i.e., spending less than it takes in). This is probably why HappyJack's stake strived to provide a net balance to the Church.

A non-profit organization uses fund accounting.  They may have only one checking account but the money is accounted for in the different funds and must be used for the purpose of the respective funds.  Fast offerings go into the Fast Offering Fund and must be used for fast offering purposes.  It may be used anywhere in the world but it must be used to help the needy.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Well, I'm proud of you for trying.

I really did find it interesting, so thanks for asking me to listen to it! :) 

Regarding the loaves and fishes, do you disagree that spending resources on the current needs of the church is a better strategy than planning to meet future needs?

I think people discussing it would need to define what they mean by a) resources, b) current needs of the Church, and c) future needs of the Church. The Madsons (I misspelled it in my notes) and the Church don't understand the same things under these terms. They have different priorities, emphases, and motives. The answer, then, is, "Well, it all depends." 

Is there a scriptural model that justifies the church's current strategy over loaves and fishes model?

kfisher pointed out some I would have mentioned (7 fat and 7 thin years, count the cost). I would also add that it isn't binary, black and white. I gave a talk a while ago on the Jesus' use of paradox. His teachings are full of paradoxes, and I think that thinking about this can help us learn a lot. 

"My yoke is easy, and my burden is light"

"Be wise as serpents and harmless as doves"

"Take no thought vs. count the cost"

"First shall be last, and the last shall be first"

"Turn the other cheek vs. if you have a sword, carry it"

There are many others. Both sides of the coin are important, working together simultaneously --- not one side at the expense of the other. I think both the emphasis on loaves and fish and prudently laying up in store are simultaneously important, not solely one at the expense of the other. 

 

Link to comment

Here are some other thoughts I have about what I heard with the podcast:

1) The way that the Madsons and other very liberal, activist-minded people see the world compared to how the vast majority of active LDS see the world is nearly irreconcilable. I find it hard to see such avoiding “faith transition” indefinitely.

 

2) The Madsons’ complete aversion to any expectation of self-reliance was striking to me. I didn’t know or believe that there are actually people who truly believe that no institution should expect any self-reliance at all. I guess there really are. Elder Benson’s advice on self-reliance “colonialist and racist?”

 

3) Their view that the church should decentralize to the point where it would just be a network of home churches, loosely connected via internet --- and with no “gatekeeping” judgment --- would mean that the Church would not be anything like it was. Which is exactly what they want, of course.

 

4) I was saddened by their insistence that poor people should never be asked to sacrifice and prove God as far as tithing. *I* and *my family* are the poor they’re trying to save (compared to almost every other family in my community, based on income, household, etc.). Testimony consists of what we believe and know, and one thing I know is that living the law of tithing, even when it means having the faith to step off the cliff, draws near to God and enables miracles as powerful as raising the dead. I’m sad for people who will never experience this.

 

5) Their insistence that the inactive in the world “tried” to live tithing but found that they couldn’t is remarkable. Most haven’t tried it --- overwhelmingly so.

 

6) Ditto with their view that inactives who go missing do so because the Church doesn’t meet their basic physical needs. It has much, much more to do with lack of testimony or lack of witness than dashed expectations of basic subsistence assistance.

 

7) Their loaves and fishes view that tithing and fast offerings would soar if the Church divvied it out to the poor as soon as it came in (because it is inspiring) is very naïve, in my view.

 

8) I am skeptical of their claim that there were trainings with documents valuing North American converts monetarily over foreign converts. As I mentioned, *that* would be an explosive leak! While this has some bare truth to it, I can’t see the Church actually stating it.

 

9) The claim that a decision was made to keep the best missionaries stateside and send the worst to foreign missions (because foreign converts don’t matter) is absurd on a number of levels.

 

10) Also naïve is their insistence that a large, very active ward should have the same activity budget as a tiny branch (because it’s racist, not fair, etc.) is ludicrous. And not because we capitalist pigs want to hog all the resources. The budgets are proportionate according to activity. I don’t think their “Brewster’s Millions” approach of scattering money wildly regardless of actual active membership would result in spiritual resurgence.

 

11) I found their distaste for worthiness standards of any kind (WoW, tithing, and Church discipline were specifically mentioned, but they made the point of total deregulation and elimination of any gatekeepers) to be distasteful.

 

12) I did somewhat agree with leaving fast offering local rather than sending it to Salt Lake, but then what would overdrawing units do? As it stands, most of North America gives out more fast offerings than they take in, and this would stop that.

 

13) I am highly skeptical of their claim that the reason why foreign fast offerings are net gains for the Church while North American are net losses is because caps have been placed on foreign countries, but in NA, it’s a blank check. Easy claim to make (especially given their ideology and orientation). Caps and limits haven’t been my experience from what I know of other countries. They don’t have the gross fast offering income, but I don’t believe the Church told foreign countries that they could only spend so much.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, rongo said:

12) I did somewhat agree with leaving fast offering local rather than sending it to Salt Lake, but then what would overdrawing units do? As it stands, most of North America gives out more fast offerings than they take in, and this would stop that.

 

I completely disagree with this idea.  Utterly, totally, vehemently... To even propose such an idea show a complete lack of knowledge of the abundance that some areas have compared to the poverty suffered by others.  While in many cases the poverty is self inflicted, with others it is often times beyond the control of the individual.  Bishops are called and set apart and are given the power to discern and sometimes make tough choices.  But a bishop should never be prevented from giving assistance as prompted by the Holy Spirit because of an empty ward fast offering fund.  I can't speak for any other area but my own as to what the best system would be, but that being said feel very, very strongly on this subject as you perhaps can tell.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I completely disagree with this idea.  Utterly, totally, vehemently... To even propose such an idea show a complete lack of knowledge of the abundance that some areas have compared to the poverty suffered by others.  While in many cases the poverty is self inflicted, with others it is often times beyond the control of the individual.  Bishops are called and set apart and are given the power to discern and sometimes make tough choices.  But a bishop should never be prevented from giving assistance as prompted by the Holy Spirit because of an empty ward fast offering fund.  I can't speak for any other area but my own as to what the best system would be, but that being said feel very, very strongly on this subject as you perhaps can tell.

It used to be this way, which is partly why I disagreed with Rongo's initial summary of Elder Burton's statement that Fast Offerings have "always" been handled the same way. It's just not so.

I understand why you don't like this approach. I don't really see much benefit to keeping things local. It kind of works that way already but with greater flexibility and access to needed resources

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I completely disagree with this idea.  Utterly, totally, vehemently... To even propose such an idea show a complete lack of knowledge of the abundance that some areas have compared to the poverty suffered by others.  While in many cases the poverty is self inflicted, with others it is often times beyond the control of the individual.  Bishops are called and set apart and are given the power to discern and sometimes make tough choices.  But a bishop should never be prevented from giving assistance as prompted by the Holy Spirit because of an empty ward fast offering fund.  I can't speak for any other area but my own as to what the best system would be, but that being said feel very, very strongly on this subject as you perhaps can tell.

It does seem to run counter to their motives and objectives. This would actually cause less help for the poor in many instances. Talk about the Law of Unintended Consequences!

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It used to be this way, which is partly why I disagreed with Rongo's initial summary of Elder Burton's statement that Fast Offerings have "always" been handled the same way. It's just not so.

If true, that is new information to me. It seems like more poor can be helped by centralizing it in Salt Lake.

I found several of their claims to be very questionable, though (caps on assistance in foreign countries, but none in North America, for example).

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, rongo said:

If true, that is new information to me. It seems like more poor can be helped by centralizing it in Salt Lake.

I found several of their claims to be very questionable, though (caps on assistance in foreign countries, but none in North America, for example).

I'd love to know for sure. So much of what we hear is anecdotal--one stake president speaking or something like that. It would be great to have better information or even a mechanism where members could ask questions about how things operate.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...