LDS Church welfare, humanitarian efforts avg $40m/yr

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

A larger portion of our money goes to the philanthropic purpose of getting and keeping people out of hell. Unfortunately our critics do not see this as a worthy cause.

What portion of our money goes to getting and keeping people out of hell?

[rockpond]

18 hours ago, Danzo said:

So I guess we have an explanation on why the church doesn't do better.

You would rather help pay red cross's billion dollar salaries (over half of their revenue).

I know you already researched this, so it obviously doesn't bother you.

What are the salaries of LDS leaders?  How do they compare to Red Cross leader salaries?

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, Danzo said:

Its a trust issue, I guess.

Since I believe that this is the church of Jesus Christ, I believe that any problems with incorrect administration of funds will be corrected by him in his way and in his time.

I personally have seen funds administered very well on a local level, and i seen no reason to fear that there is any widespread misuse of funds.  Since the administration of the funds are in the hands of humans, there will be problems, since we are flawed.  However, this condition affects any other organization.

Just because financial statements are disclosed on tax forms or other reports, doesn't mean that you can see what is really happening.

I earn a large part of my living due to the fact the what is reported on tax and other financial forms doesn't always reflect reality.  I see it every day. 

Form 990s (the tax forms that non profits use) are notorious for their errors.

 

Have you had any experience with misuse of church funds that caused you to lose your trust?

Or is it just the general fear of not knowing?

It's not really a lack of trust.  I trust our leaders.  And, like you, I've participated in the decision making and administration of funds at a local level and have never experienced any misuse.  I spent a short time covering for my bishop during his tenure as the local "transient bishop".  It was absolutely wonderful to be able to help people in desperate circumstances.

So, again, not an issue of distrust or anticipated misuse.  It's that the Brethen chose to stop sharing how the funds are used and so I have limited insight into what is happening.  And from what I can see, they have different priorities than I do.

 

[Tacenda]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865555292/LDS-Church-buys-farmland-Hauns-Mill-Far-West-Kirtland-property-from-Community-of-Christ.html?pg=all#kyWD8Wz5FeVS3HRW.01

I think the church is plenty wealthy...

[Gray]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

A larger portion of our money goes to the philanthropic purpose of getting and keeping people out of hell. Unfortunately our critics do not see this as a worthy cause.

That's really not what the LDS doctrine is, regarding hell. In fact arguably the only people going to hell are people who've had deep ties with Mormonism (unforgivable sin doctrine).

Is there someone who I can give money to to spring a soul from hell? How much is it per soul? 

Edited July 15, 2016 by Gray

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865555292/LDS-Church-buys-farmland-Hauns-Mill-Far-West-Kirtland-property-from-Community-of-Christ.html?pg=all#kyWD8Wz5FeVS3HRW.01

I think the church is plenty wealthy...

I think that they would be considered wealthy by anyone's measurement.

Just think of the value of their real estate portfolio, temples, chapels, etc.

And I understand that there is very little debt as well. 

If you are looking to join a church that is struggling financially, then I'm afraid that you need to look at other churches.

[Danzo]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

It's not really a lack of trust.  I trust our leaders.  And, like you, I've participated in the decision making and administration of funds at a local level and have never experienced any misuse.  I spent a short time covering for my bishop during his tenure as the local "transient bishop".  It was absolutely wonderful to be able to help people in desperate circumstances.

So, again, not an issue of distrust or anticipated misuse.  It's that the Brethen chose to stop sharing how the funds are used and so I have limited insight into what is happening.  And from what I can see, they have different priorities than I do.

 

I am glad that your experience echos mine at the local level, I always have felt it was a heavy responsibility  to manage the Lords funds when I have had callings that required me to do so.

So If I am understanding you correctly, it's not a lack of trust that bothers you, its the idea of not knowing, fear of the unknown that makes you reluctant to contribute.

Also, it would seem that some of the financial actions that you do see church leaders engaging in, do not reflect your priorities.

I can understand that, I suspect each one of us has different priorities and would dispose of the church assets in different ways.  I suspect that if I were in charge (and you and I can be thankful that I am not), I might make different choices then the ones that are currently being made. 

I think sometimes the lord also lets us and them make decisions on our own,  maybe it doesn't make all that much difference to anyone's salvation if money is invested in Pepsi or coke, or real estate.

 

 

I have faith that the lord will hold those who manage the sacred funds accountable and will correct errors in his own way and in his own time.

Of course, I cannot force you or anyone else to have the same faith.

 

[Danzo]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

All big charities have to have leadership, and good leadership costs money. But at least they're transparent. I don't see the point in throwing money into a black hole and hoping it's used for philanthropic purposes. 

Your faith in the transparency of other organizations exceeds mine.

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Your faith in the transparency of other organizations exceeds mine.

I think Gray's point is that having some transparency is better than none.

[Gray]

11 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Your faith in the transparency of other organizations exceeds mine.

As Rockpond said, some transparency is better than none. I believe organizations behave differently (more ethically) when they know they're being observed by the public. 

If I give money intended for LDS philanthropic efforts, I don't really know what it will be used for. For all I know it will be shuffled off to BYU, and I have no interest in contributing to things like that when I'm trying to do something positive with some extra funds.  

Edited July 15, 2016 by Gray

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I am glad that your experience echos mine at the local level, I always have felt it was a heavy responsibility  to manage the Lords funds when I have had callings that required me to do so.

So If I am understanding you correctly, it's not a lack of trust that bothers you, its the idea of not knowing, fear of the unknown that makes you reluctant to contribute.

Also, it would seem that some of the financial actions that you do see church leaders engaging in, do not reflect your priorities.

I can understand that, I suspect each one of us has different priorities and would dispose of the church assets in different ways.  I suspect that if I were in charge (and you and I can be thankful that I am not), I might make different choices then the ones that are currently being made. 

I think sometimes the lord also lets us and them make decisions on our own,  maybe it doesn't make all that much difference to anyone's salvation if money is invested in Pepsi or coke, or real estate.

 

 

I have faith that the lord will hold those who manage the sacred funds accountable and will correct errors in his own way and in his own time.

Of course, I cannot force you or anyone else to have the same faith.

 

It has nothing to do with fear.  I have no fear regarding this (not sure why you keep coming back to that as it is not something I've even hinted at).  I am not "reluctant" to contribute (beyond tithes and fast offerings), I have made the educated decision to not do so.

I too have faith that in the end, the Lord will hold each of us accountable for our decisions.

It isn't a matter of whether anyone's salvation is being impacted by where the funds are invested, it's about whether a luxury condo tower in Philadelphia is really a good use of church funds.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

As Rockpond said, some transparency is better than none. I believe organizations behave differently (more ethically) when they know they're being observed by the public. 

I think this is true.  And it is interesting to note that Danzo seems critical of salaries paid to the leadership of other charitable organizations but not those paid within the LDS Church.

[Gray]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think this is true.  And it is interesting to note that Danzo seems critical of salaries paid to the leadership of other charitable organizations but not those paid within the LDS Church.

I can tell you that any philanthropic organization that doesn't pay decent executive salary is not going to attract quality leadership. And quality leadership is needed for these orgs to fulfill their philanthropic mission. Good talent is not cheap. 

Regarding salary of LDS Church leaders, that's another question mark. I can look up the 990 filing of the Red Cross, and all the pertinent financial data is there, including the salary of the senior leadership. Churches may volunteer that kind of information to the public, but they don't have to. 

Edited July 15, 2016 by Gray

[Danzo]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think this is true.  And it is interesting to note that Danzo seems critical of salaries paid to the leadership of other charitable organizations but not those paid within the LDS Church.

I think you misunderstand me.

I am not critical of salaries paid to leadership in either organization, I am sure that the employees earn it.

I was just making a note, that according to the 990 of the red cross's 990

http://www.redcross.org/images/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m46340207_2014_American_Red_Cross_Tax_Return.pdf

The red cross uses about half (1.5 billion) of its 2.9 billion in revenues is for salaries, meaning that a large portion of red crosses expenses seem to be pay (well earned, I'm sure) other people directly.

The idea that the church pays its employees doesn't seem to go over very well with some people here, but its not a problem with other organizations?

It also shows that almost one 4th of the contributions go to fundraising expenses.

 

Nothing against them at all, but you would rather donate to them, than donate where

" One hundred percent of every dollar donated is used to help those in need without regard to race, religion, or ethnic origin. "

https://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/humanitarian-services/funds/humanitarian-general-fund.html

 

 

[Danzo]

34 minutes ago, rockpond said:

it's about whether a luxury condo tower in Philadelphia is really a good use of church funds.

Like I said, you seem to advocate a different investing strategy then the church is using currently.

Where would you put money?

Securities?  

Real Estate?

A bank account at .000001% interest?

Junk Bonds?

Mutual Funds?

the Lottery?

Commodities?

The Bond Market?

 

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Like I said, you seem to advocate a different investing strategy then the church is using currently.

Where would you put money?

Securities?  

Real Estate?

A bank account at .000001% interest?

Junk Bonds?

Mutual Funds?

the Lottery?

Commodities?

The Bond Market?

 

Since I personally own and develop commercial real estate, I obviously believe it to be a good investment.

But at what point do those funds go from being invested to being used to further the mission of the church and the kingdom of God?

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I think you misunderstand me.

I am not critical of salaries paid to leadership in either organization, I am sure that the employees earn it.

I was just making a note, that according to the 990 of the red cross's 990

http://www.redcross.org/images/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m46340207_2014_American_Red_Cross_Tax_Return.pdf

The red cross uses about half (1.5 billion) of its 2.9 billion in revenues is for salaries, meaning that a large portion of red crosses expenses seem to be pay (well earned, I'm sure) other people directly.

The idea that the church pays its employees doesn't seem to go over very well with some people here, but its not a problem with other organizations?

It also shows that almost one 4th of the contributions go to fundraising expenses.

 

Nothing against them at all, but you would rather donate to them, than donate where

" One hundred percent of every dollar donated is used to help those in need without regard to race, religion, or ethnic origin. "

https://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/humanitarian-services/funds/humanitarian-general-fund.html

 

 

Again, I don't donate to the Red Cross so that isn't relevant.

Where are the LDS Philanthropies financial statements?  Who pays their leadership and overhead?

[Danzo]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Since I personally own and develop commercial real estate, I obviously believe it to be a good investment.

But at what point do those funds go from being invested to being used to further the mission of the church and the kingdom of God?

When there is money, you are either going to spend it immediately, or you are going spend it later.

If you are going to spend it later, it is often advisable to invest the money, so that there is more to spend later.  

There are various ways to do this, with varying risks.

Is your complaint that too much is saved and not enough spent?

[Gray]

24 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I think you misunderstand me.

I am not critical of salaries paid to leadership in either organization, I am sure that the employees earn it.

I was just making a note, that according to the 990 of the red cross's 990

http://www.redcross.org/images/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m46340207_2014_American_Red_Cross_Tax_Return.pdf

The red cross uses about half (1.5 billion) of its 2.9 billion in revenues is for salaries, meaning that a large portion of red crosses expenses seem to be pay (well earned, I'm sure) other people directly.

The idea that the church pays its employees doesn't seem to go over very well with some people here, but its not a problem with other organizations?

It also shows that almost one 4th of the contributions go to fundraising expenses.

 

Nothing against them at all, but you would rather donate to them, than donate where

" One hundred percent of every dollar donated is used to help those in need without regard to race, religion, or ethnic origin. "

https://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/humanitarian-services/funds/humanitarian-general-fund.html

 

 

The tithing slip says they can use the money however they like, though:

[Danzo]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Again, I don't donate to the Red Cross so that isn't relevant.

Where are the LDS Philanthropies financial statements?  Who pays their leadership and overhead?

I'm just using red cross as an example because I have their 990 in front of me.

I believe leadership in overhead is paid using other sourced funds (could be from tithing or from the church's for profit entities)

Much of the effort is probably donated, knowing how the church works.   Lots of church service missionaries.

[Danzo]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

The tithing slip says they can use the money however they like, though:

All it means is that the funds won't be returned. This verbage is necessary for tax purposes, and to avoid having them designated as restricted funds.

This form is also a warning so that those who want to restrict the funds need to use another form specialized for that purpose.

One of the problems with restricted funds is that usually the funds have to be returned if they are not needed for the restricted purpose 

Anyone who has ever dealt with non profit funds accounting knows how much a pain restricted funds can be.  I try to encourage my clients to include  similar language to keep them from have to manage a restricted funds account. 

The verbage is especially necessary when dealing with the mission funds for tax purposes.  If it weren't there, donations to the ward mission fund might not be tax deductible.

There was a case that made it to the supreme court in 90

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis_v._United_States_(1990)

I think this case probably influenced the church to do the mission funding program the way it is currently structured. The disclaimer would be necessary to the tax deductiblity of the donation.  Without it, a case could be made that money was just a support payment.

 

 

 

 

 

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Danzo said:

When there is money, you are either going to spend it immediately, or you are going spend it later.

If you are going to spend it later, it is often advisable to invest the money, so that there is more to spend later.  

There are various ways to do this, with varying risks.

Is your complaint that too much is saved and not enough spent?

I can't complain because I have no idea how much is saved/invested and how/when it is then used.  That's the problem.

 

1 minute ago, Danzo said:

I'm just using red cross as an example because I have their 990 in front of me.

I believe leadership in overhead is paid using other sourced funds (could be from tithing or from the church's for profit entities)

Much of the effort is probably donated, knowing how the church works.   Lots of church service missionaries.

So when LDS Philanthropies claims that 100% of every dollar is used to help those in need, it likely comes at a cost to the Church.  And that cost is not shared with any of us.

 

[Jeanne]

25 minutes ago, Gray said:

The tithing slip says they can use the money however they like, though:

Wow...this list is a lot longer than my early days of church.

[Jeanne]

I just wanted to share an experience that means a lot to me.  I know that I don't always support here the way tithing dollars may be spent or the reasons the church does one thing or another.  I realize, too, that it is because I really don't understand various real estate deals/reasons and taxes..expenses etc.  But I am also aware that there is not as much transparency as there could be.

In any case, I wanted to share something that means a lot to me as far as tithing as true charity.  On one of my last recent visits to see my very old Dad...I took my daughter with me.During that visit, My Dad told my daughter..."I have something for you..from MY mother"..This is when Dad handed her an old..old leather coin purse. It is very small with those old clasps.  I saw that coin purse and immediately saw my grandma's hands unclutching it..gathering a few dollar and coins to put in an envelope.  She ..on a measly small social security check..made sure she paid the Bishop everymonth.  I saw that as if she was standing right next to me..her wedding ring on wrinkled fingers..and an extra $5.00 for the missionary.  That..is true love and charity..tithing or not to the church..it is what is in the heart. 

[Danzo]

49 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So when LDS Philanthropies claims that 100% of every dollar is used to help those in need, it likely comes at a cost to the Church.  And that cost is not shared with any of us.

 

I guess that I can take comfort in knowing that it is quite likely that greater than 100% of the money contributed to the humanitarian fund will be used (since I will be causing expenses against the church's general fund).

That's good to remember.