sdc999 Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 As tithing is being debated hot and heavy, I thought I would turn to offerings. Offerings, according to the church, go to help the poor and needy. Would the church be offended if members donated directly to the poor and needy? There are many organizations that help the poor and needy and one may find one that they particularly like outside of the church. Would this be wrong vs giving it to the bishop?
Duncan Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 As tithing is being debated hot and heavy, I thought I would turn to offerings. Offerings, according to the church, go to help the poor and needy. Would the church be offended if members donated directly to the poor and needy? There are many organizations that help the poor and needy and one may find one that they particularly like outside of the church. Would this be wrong vs giving it to the bishop? I don't think the church, the Bishop, whoever in the Church would even know if you donated money, supplies to help poor people-I know members who sponsor African children and make blankets to help poor people in poorer areas-I think that's the point though help out those less fortunate without being asked to making a big deal about it-'alms before men' 1
Calm Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 There are many organizations that help the poor and needy and one may find one that they particularly like outside of the church. Would this be wrong vs giving it to the bishop? You mean instead of giving fast offerings?
Paddy Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 (edited) You mean instead of giving fast offerings?I think most people do both anyway. Contributing to hampers, giving money to the homeless person on the street, buying groceries for the needy family in the ward, fund raising for youth activities which are usually paid by families of the ward anyway, etc, etc. as well as paying fast offerings all contribute to helping the poor and needy. Fast offering should be another option in our general giving to others Edited March 2, 2015 by Paddy
ksfisher Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 I don't think anyone would say that it was wrong to give to a charitable organization that helps the poor and needy. I happen to work for one such organization. That being said, I do like the way in which the church helps those in need versus what I see in other organizations. 2
CV75 Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 As tithing is being debated hot and heavy, I thought I would turn to offerings. Offerings, according to the church, go to help the poor and needy. Would the church be offended if members donated directly to the poor and needy? There are many organizations that help the poor and needy and one may find one that they particularly like outside of the church. Would this be wrong vs giving it to the bishop? Not at all. There is a covenantal relationship between fasting and fast offerings that has partiular promises, an purposes. There are also promises and purposes for working through other systems to help the poor and needy. We live and learn to balance the Lord's commandments with finding and creating opportunities for helping others.
Alan Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 I don't pay fast offerings to the church.There are 3 main reasons for this.1. Recipients of church welfare are rarely the "poor and needy".2. The church doesn't guarantee the funds will go to the welfare programme.3. There are plenty of poor and needy people in my town, so why send my offering to SLC?
Popular Post KevinG Posted March 2, 2015 Popular Post Posted March 2, 2015 Fast offerings don't go to SLC (other than for accounting purposes). They stay in your town, distributed by a volunteer who gets paid 0% in overhead, and who knows the people he distributes the offerings to. I've been on all ends of the fast offering donations, donating, counting, distributing, and receiving, during different periods of my life. It was a huge blessing to be able to keep my modest house while looking for a job, after a layoff that nearly devastated my family. The Bishop was far from careless with other peoples offerings. We sat down and worked out a plan to get as much help from other sources as possible, curtail our spending, and live as simply as possible. At the same time he never complained when I needed assistance. It was private, personal, and tailored to our needs. There is no other mechanism that is so efficient, and personal, than to have a local authority dispense assistance to those who are in his own stewardship. In addition to food and paying bills in the short term. The Church has a very robust employment program that members and the general community can use free of charge. That is my current calling, and I'm always eager to lift and encourage those who have short term setbacks - so their period of unemployment and the hopelessness that goes with it is shortened as much as possible. If there is surplus it goes to other areas of the world where it is needed. https://www.lds.org/topics/welfare?lang=eng 5
ksfisher Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 I don't pay fast offerings to the church.There are 3 main reasons for this.1. Recipients of church welfare are rarely the "poor and needy".2. The church doesn't guarantee the funds will go to the welfare programme.3. There are plenty of poor and needy people in my town, so why send my offering to SLC? 1. My experience is exactly the opposite. Having been in callings that dealt with such I rarely saw any assistance directed by the bishop that I wondered if it was appropriate or not. 2. Perhaps the church doesn't guarantee the funds will go to welfare, but they do. Do you have any examples of funds donated to the fast offering fund that were not used for welfare? 3. As already mentioned, the money goes to Salt Lake for administrative purposes only. Bishops and branch presidents everywhere draw from this fund to assist people in their local area. If the money stayed only in that local area you would end up with the more well to do areas having an overabundance of fast offering funds, and poorer areas a perpetual lack of funds. 1
Alan Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 No they don't go to the poor and needy.The members who receive welfare assistance are only relatively poor, not actually poor. They usually have a place to live, perhaps a car (or two), clothes, a TV (or two, or three...), sometimes even a good job.Last month I gave my fast offering to a thin, ragged homeless man sat on the freezing ground next to an old church. It was sub-zero and he was shivering. When I gave him the money (I could kick myself for not buying him a coat as well) he saw the amount and asked me if I was sure. No one comes into the office pleading poverty who is in that condition.Believe me, I know what I'm talking about.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 As tithing is being debated hot and heavy, I thought I would turn to offerings. Offerings, according to the church, go to help the poor and needy. Would the church be offended if members donated directly to the poor and needy? There are many organizations that help the poor and needy and one may find one that they particularly like outside of the church. Would this be wrong vs giving it to the bishop? I know form first hand experience that the church does not get offended if some one were to directly help the poor and needy. In fact I would say that they encourage it. Fast offerings are one way to help but it is not the only way.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 1. Recipients of church welfare are rarely the "poor and needy".Poor and needy are not mutually exclusive. I can still be needy while not being poor in the destitute sense. 1
ksfisher Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 No they don't go to the poor and needy.The members who receive welfare assistance are only relatively poor, not actually poor. They usually have a place to live, perhaps a car (or two), clothes, a TV (or two, or three...), sometimes even a good job.Last month I gave my fast offering to a thin, ragged homeless man sat on the freezing ground next to an old church. It was sub-zero and he was shivering. When I gave him the money (I could kick myself for not buying him a coat as well) he saw the amount and asked me if I was sure. No one comes into the office pleading poverty who is in that condition.Believe me, I know what I'm talking about. Really...you are aware of every person in the church who is receiving fast offering assistance and know their financial situation? 3
Alan Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 I am aware of every person in my ward who is or has received welfare over past few years.
ksfisher Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 I am aware of every person in my ward who is or has received welfare over past few years. Your ward isn't the entire church.
ksfisher Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 I'll bet it's pretty typical though. But you really don't know that. I'm not sure how you can make blanket statements about the dispersal of fast offering funds throughout the entire church when, by your own admission, you only have experience with your own ward.
HappyJackWagon Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 There's certainly nothing wrong with donating to other charitys and I personally enjoy seeing how people I know, who are needy (if not poor), benefit. I think we often make too big of a deal out of trying to get extra work out of the member who receives fast offering assistance. While I agree that it can be a good way to get someone involved and reinforce the idea that the assistance isn't an entitlement, I have a problem with requiring extra work assignments from fully active members who already donate time and service. For example, if the HPGL needs help one month, why require him to do additional work? He is doing plenty already. To me the extra work requirements often seem petty and belittle the contributions the member is already making. Also, many wards and stakes work within a budget for how much they spend on fast offerings. For example, a ward/stake may have a goal to only spend 50% of what they take in so they can send the rest to SLC to be redistributed to areas in greater need. While I agree that it is wise to use the money where it is most needed, this can tend to make leaders cheap in helping their own people AND there is no guarantee that the money sent to SLC is forwarded to help the needy in other areas. There simply is no reporting to know that this happens and I tend to think excess funds go into the investments like all other funds. So I prefer to see 100% of offerings used at the ward level where it can be verified. If a leader doesn't see a need to spend the $$ they may not be looking hard enough.
ksfisher Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 So I prefer to see 100% of offerings used at the ward level where it can be verified. If a leader doesn't see a need to spend the $$ they may not be looking hard enough. Which would lead to the problem of well to do wards having plenty of fast offering funds, while wards in poorer areas never having enough. 1
KevinG Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 If you don't like where the offerings are going, don't donate. It seems a bit cheeky to complain about where funds are going that others donated. As a recipient and giver of these funds I've seen very good stewardship. Regarding the "relative" poverty comment. In the long run it is much better to temporarily assist someone, prevent the loss of a home and/or bankruptcy, and get them back to a productive stable job and finance situation faster without crushing interest on debt, than it is to let them fall so far that employment and stability are at risk. While counseling those I serve on employment issues, I also share my experience, and counsel them on how to stay positive, and go into interviews looking professional and not desperate for any job. Running a job search from a PO box and without the ability to have a dry cleaned suit and pressed shirt, is not conducive to future employment. I'm even exploring how we can get cell phones and advertising for some of our handymen so they can be employed too. Think of it like microfinance with economies of scale. Or there is another option. If someone has a temporary setback we can ship them to West Virginia or Detroit and tell them to live off the government. Sorry no second chances for you! 4
HappyJackWagon Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 Which would lead to the problem of well to do wards having plenty of fast offering funds, while wards in poorer areas never having enough. I don't disagree with you Ksfisher but people like to know that their donations to serve the poor and needy are really being used for that purpose. It's a little different than making a donation to the overall church, yet that's how it ends up. An easy fix would be 1- Allow fast offering funds to roll over into the next year if needed2- Give each stake a "receipt" for where there excess funds have been used. I sure wouldn't begrudge excess funds being sent to a third world country or even a poor ward in the US but I'm not keen on having it flow back into the general funds for investment.
KevinG Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 Where the funds eventually go depends entirely on our own behavior. If we send a surplus to Salt Lake City more is available for programs like these: https://www.lds.org/topics/humanitarian-service?lang=eng But if we are miserly with our offerings, and insist on having unimportant things before sacrificing, there will be less to distribute. The brethren in Salt Lake City have very little power other than to distribute what is available through us, the best they know how. Just like when I was in State Government we constantly preached being frugal because we were spending taxpayer dollars, my friends who work as church employees say they are also constantly aware they are funded by offerings, and strive to keep overhead as low as possible. 1
busybee Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 As tithing is being debated hot and heavy, I thought I would turn to offerings. Offerings, according to the church, go to help the poor and needy. Would the church be offended if members donated directly to the poor and needy? There are many organizations that help the poor and needy and one may find one that they particularly like outside of the church. Would this be wrong vs giving it to the bishop? Most of those 'organizations' do not give all that is donated to them to those in need. They pay executives, employees and other overheads first, and what is left is then used to help those in need. In contrast, our offerings paid to the church are used solely to help those in need. In Ireland, for example, one charity pays it's street collectors nearly double the minimum wage. They are paid €13 per hour and ask people to donate €7 per month. How is my €7 ever going to help someone in need when in reality it will pay for half an hour's labour for the person collecting??? I would rather help the needy through the church every day of the week before I support one of the 'organizations'!! 1
ksfisher Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 I don't disagree with you Ksfisher but people like to know that their donations to serve the poor and needy are really being used for that purpose. It's a little different than making a donation to the overall church, yet that's how it ends up. An easy fix would be 1- Allow fast offering funds to roll over into the next year if needed2- Give each stake a "receipt" for where there excess funds have been used. I sure wouldn't begrudge excess funds being sent to a third world country or even a poor ward in the US but I'm not keen on having it flow back into the general funds for investment.1- So a well to do ward continues to build up unused funds from year to year?2- Do you have any evidence that unused fast offering money is being put into a general investment fund?
Recommended Posts