Calm Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 47 minutes ago, ksfisher said: Some of what your are saying is written about here. http://americamagazine.org/issue/5136/columns/mormons-and-charity Ram A. Cnaan, a renowned Israeli-born social-work scholar at the University of Pennsylvania, the study concludes that churchgoing Mormons “are the most pro-social members of American society.” Even Mormons who have relatively low household incomes both tithe fully and give more of their income to assist non-Mormons in need than other Americans do. I'm sure there are other sources, but this is the first one I ran across. This is the best source from what I have seen. Unfortunately my ipad keeps bombing during searches and that cuts way down on my inclination to search for others. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 16 minutes ago, Jeanne said: I am sure he had his reasons. She paid tithing for a while..but lost her apartment..moved to a smaller place. She did not feel comfortable returning to ask for help and no one checked in. I think she may had assumed to much in what kind of assistance maybe. She is okay now with doing things on her own. Perhaps that was the point. Bishops are prepared to pay rent, fill out free food orders, and do a host of other things -- when I was a financial clerk, I often delivered the checks from my bishop. But, you are correct. The bishop definitely expects effort on the part of those he helps from his fast offering fund. The Church generally will foot the bill for psychological counseling and job search (through Family Services), and I have seen some remarkable successes. It is the bishop's job to coordinate all that. 2
Calm Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 14 minutes ago, Tacenda said: I bet the money outside of tithing is fast offerings. Perhaps, but it also stated "” Even Mormons who have relatively low household incomes both tithe fully and give more of their income to assist non-Mormons in need than other Americans do." 1
Calm Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 Stem, this may have info as it seems likely to be the study referred to, but the abstract doesn't provide details. Pew usually lists good summaries of their research so it is probably there, the crashing is making it intolerable for me to check: http://nvs.sagepub.com/content/44/1/146.abstract
Calm Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 Here is another publication by the same group: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259553493_Volunteering_Among_Latter-Day_Saints
ksfisher Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 17 minutes ago, Calm said: This is the best source from what I have seen. Unfortunately my ipad keeps bombing during searches and that cuts way down on my inclination to search for others. I know I've seen an actual primary source on this, but I can't remember where.
stemelbow Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 15 minutes ago, Calm said: Here is another publication by the same group: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259553493_Volunteering_Among_Latter-Day_Saints This looks like a good place for me to start. I'll try and find more as well. I might post my impressions. Seriously, though, thanks for looking. Always appreciated.
Calm Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 I love doing research. Keeps my brain fresh. I am looking forward to next upgrade but some other expenses come first.
CV75 Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: What is unclear is the percentage of income the church donates. It appears to be much less than 1%. Assuming the humanitarian aid comes from member contributions (directly from personal contributions or indirectly through Church-owned enterprises), in some poorer countries $2.67 represents 0.33% of a person’s annual income (e.g. Malawi). In the USA it is about 0.005%. The worldwide average would be 0.015%. So, “much less than 1%” of annual income still seems relatively high. 5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: That seems strange to me. The magic of statistics. $1.2 billion over 30 years isn't that strange.
Thinking Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: But Elder Oaks specifically stated that it was $40 million spent on welfare, humanitarian aid, and other church projects around the world. Why would we think this doesn't include welfare? You may be right. Is there anybody on this board who has first hand knowledge of whether the $40 million includes welfare given to members?
Teancum Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 4 hours ago, ksfisher said: Or they could just lower their profit margin by 5% and you could decide which charity you want to give your money to instead of Target deciding for you. Uh no because you and it and others would likely not give to charity if we save 5% at Target, I admire companies like Target that do this. I admire the Huntsman's whose company gives away all it's profits after reasonable compensation to the owner/operators. I admire Bill Gates and all the billions he is putting into charitable efforts and Warren Buffet who is joining forces with him. The LDS Church does a lot of humanitarian relief if you count fast offerings. If not, then not so much. The 10% for tithing... well little to none of that goes to relieve human suffering. That goes to operations as well as to fund the education of those who are able to be admitted to a Church school.
Calm Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 (edited) Thinking, Itseems unlikely given past discussions, for example here: http://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2012/07/business-weeks-erroneous-claim-about-lds-charitable-giving/ I can't access the current fact sheets to check if there has been changes. Otoh, it seems strange that he would use that term if he meant something else. Edited July 14, 2016 by Calm
Robert F. Smith Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 (edited) 9 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: You must not understand that Thinking was estimating on averages. Not sure what you're so upset about here but your angry attack seems misplaced. On the other hand, if the church was transparent with its finances there wouldn't be any need to guess or estimate. $40 million in donations is a big number and I have no doubt that $40 million does a great deal of good. What is unclear is the percentage of income the church donates. It appears to be much less than 1%. It's also interesting to note that the church has been consistent in averaging $40 million each year for the past 30 years. It would seem $40 million in 1986 would go a bit farther than in 2016. Incomes are up. Membership is up. Presumably donations into the church are up. But the welfare and humanitarian aid paid out by the church has remained the same. That seems strange to me. You probably forgot to factor in the level of need over the years since 1986, even assuming that your figures are correct in every other respect. During that time, we have seen occasional geological and climatological catastrophes which have required larger outlays of cash and materiel -- along with changing levels of economic need for ordinary people in an increasingly worldwide church. A graph might give us a better picture of the oscillatory expenditures over time. We have also seen an increase in LDS self-help programs, such as the Perpetual Education Fund (PEF) and the like. We would need to apply advanced calculus equations to take into account the full range of moving variables. Even at that, we are only talking about one small part of LDS Church activity worldwide -- in which ever larger missions are implemented, and in which the building of chapels and temples continues apace. A tough row to how, even in the best of times, HappyJack. Edited July 14, 2016 by Robert F. Smith
HappyJackWagon Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 19 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: You probably forgot to factor in the level of need over the years since 1986, even assuming that your figures are correct in every other respect. During that time, we have seen occasional geological and climatological catastrophes which have required larger outlays of cash and materiel -- along with changing levels of economic need for ordinary people in an increasingly worldwide church. A graph might give us a better picture of the oscillatory expenditures over time. We have also seen an increase in LDS self-help programs, such as the Perpetual Education Fund (PEF) and the like. We would need to apply advanced calculus equations to take into account the full range of moving variables. Even at that, we are only talking about one small part of LDS Church activity worldwide -- in which ever larger missions are implemented, and in which the building of chapels and temples continues apace. A tough row to how, even in the best of times, HappyJack. You seem to be making the argument for why charitable donations should NOT have been consistent over the past 30 years like Elder Oaks said. The problem with separating programs like Humanitarian Aid and the PEF from other revenue is that 1- all church revenue is fungible and seem to filter first through investments 2- even the tithing slip doesn't make claim that funds will be applied to the specific categories where they're donated 3- all funds given out are the donations from other people so the church essentially gets credit for donating a small fraction of donations it receives.
ksfisher Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 20 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: 3- all funds given out are the donations from other people so the church essentially gets credit for donating a small fraction of donations it receives. Are you saying here that the money I donate to fast offerings or humanitarian aid should be subtracted from Elder Oaks $40 million, because it was really the church that made the donation, I did? If so, then shouldn't the Red Cross and United Way subtract the money that I donate to them in their reporting?
HappyJackWagon Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, ksfisher said: Are you saying here that the money I donate to fast offerings or humanitarian aid should be subtracted from Elder Oaks $40 million, because it was really the church that made the donation, I did? If so, then shouldn't the Red Cross and United Way subtract the money that I donate to them in their reporting? No. I'm not saying that at all. I'm merely pointing out the church's primary source of revenue. If you gave me $100 for the purpose of serving others you might reasonably expect those funds to be used to benefit others. If I came to you and said, "I donated $0.74 of that money for humanitarian and welfare purposes", would you be impressed? Should I be impressed with myself for donating $0.74 that I was only able to donate because you gave it to me for the purpose of helping others? Yes, I understand that out of the $100 there are many other things the church legitimately spends $$ on. That's fine. But I don't think I'd be bragging about the $0.74. I don't think it's that impressive. Similarly, if I made $50,000 annual salary, I wouldn't impress myself much if I donated $370 (0.74% on conservative estimate of $5.5 billion income) to humanitarian and welfare causes. Edited July 15, 2016 by HappyJackWagon 1
VideoGameJunkie Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 (edited) Warren Buffett donated $2.8 billion to charities today. Edited July 16, 2016 by VideoGameJunkie
rodheadlee Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 For those giving to other charities you really need to check them out. I believe they are only required to give 4% of the money to actual charity. The scam we found was you give to one charity they keep 96% for administration costs and they donate the 4% to other charities who then keep 96% for administration costs and donate 4% to other charities and so on and so forth. You can see how the money disappears before it actually gets used for charity.This is just one article of many. http://www.tampabay.com/topics/specials/worst-charities1.page
Bernard Gui Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 I'm amused when people criticize the church for its supposed deficit in donating to the poor. The only thing we can control is what we individually give of our free will. That is the true test of charity. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 (edited) On 7/14/2016 at 2:49 PM, CV75 said: Assuming the humanitarian aid comes from member contributions (directly from personal contributions or indirectly through Church-owned enterprises), in some poorer countries $2.67 represents 0.33% of a person’s annual income (e.g. Malawi). In the USA it is about 0.005%. The worldwide average would be 0.015%. So, “much less than 1%” of annual income still seems relatively high. The magic of statistics. $1.2 billion over 30 years isn't that strange. I know there is poverty in the world but CFR on countries with median annual incomes of $8.01. I think you may be overstating by a LOT Edited July 16, 2016 by HappyJackWagon
Teancum Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 (edited) 12 hours ago, rodheadlee said: For those giving to other charities you really need to check them out. I believe they are only required to give 4% of the money to actual charity. The scam we found was you give to one charity they keep 96% for administration costs and they donate the 4% to other charities who then keep 96% for administration costs and donate 4% to other charities and so on and so forth. You can see how the money disappears before it actually gets used for charity.This is just one article of many. http://www.tampabay.com/topics/specials/worst-charities1.page This is a very good point and you can see all information including financial statements and Form 990 that all charities except churches are required to make public. That way you can see how much of your donation goes to work for the claimed purpose of the charity. Edited July 16, 2016 by Teancum
CV75 Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: I know there is poverty in the world but CFR on countries with median annual incomes of $8.01. I think you may be overstating by a LOT Here's Malawi: http://www.finca.org/where-we-work/africa/malawi/ $2.67 average annual aid divided by $815 average annual income = 0.3246% 2
cinepro Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 On 7/14/2016 at 10:42 AM, ksfisher said: Or they could just lower their profit margin by 5% and you could decide which charity you want to give your money to instead of Target deciding for you. I know it's a joke, but that's not how "profit margin" works. If Target sells a box of Legos for $10 and it cost them $7 (all in) to sell it, then they make a profit of $3. Their "profit margin" on that sale would be 30%. Based on their claim, they are ultimately giving 5%, or $.15 of the profit to charity. If they decided that they just wanted to lower prices the same amount, then the sale would be $9.85, and the profit would be $2.85. That lowers their margin on the sale to 28.9%, not 25%.
Recommended Posts