Mass Exodus from Church?

[Teancum]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You have been overbearing in the approach, tone, content and volume of your posts addressed to me. Rather than try to respond in kind, I have elected to curtail further interaction with you. 

If you intend to continue (which seems rather like stalking at this point) my alternative is to use the "ignore" feature on this board. Which would relieve me from even having to see, much less respond to anything you post. 

So enjoy your one-sided conversations. 

I have replied maybe a half dozen or so posts of yours on this thread.  I don't think my tone is one whit more over bearing and likely less so than yours.   Just look at your post above.  But tone and stridency is in the eye of the beholder. 

Before this thread my posting here has been for a while intentionally limited.   I will likely head back to periodic lurker mode. 

Of course it is up to you whether you respond to anything I post whether in response to you or anyone else.  Or if I a man that offensive certainly the ignore feature is an option.  Personally I have never used that feature.  It seems silly.  This is after all just a discussion board.   It's quite easy to scroll through and skip someone's posts that you may particularly loathe.   I scroll,through often and there are many posts that I simply choose to ignore.

i really am at a loss why you find me so offensive.  I can be strident at times but so can you and many others.   The passion one may feel for a particular position can make it such at time though that does not make it right.

if you choose to put me on ignore I guess I can at least wish you the best in all your decent endeavors.

[Bernard Gui]

On December 2, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Oliblish said:

There are always non-zero administrative costs and that have to be paid by any charitable organization.  The fact that administrative costs are deducted from a different donations bucket than the other donations doesn't make it 100% overhead free.  There is overhead, it is just being paid from the tithing donation fund instead of the humanitarian fund.  The actual efficiency of the operation can only be calculated if if those overhead costs are known.  I am not saying that there is fraud or even that the system is inefficient.  We just don't know because they keep the numbers secret.

There are some charities where a wealthy donor provides matching funds to other donors.  I donated to one of these once to support the Japan tsunami disaster relief.  I believe it was Steve Young who was making the matching donations.  I think it was a good thing but I don't think you can argue that 200% of my donations go to the cause.

If I donate $800 to a charity and someone else pays $200 to the same charity to pay overhead, is that really any different than me paying $600 plus $200 overhead and someone else paying $200 that goes directly to those in need?  In the end there is money coming from multiple sources and money goes out for overhead and to those in need.  It is 80% efficient, and I don't think it really matters which donor is paying for overhead vs. the needy.

What are the overhead costs for Fast Offerings? 

Edited December 5, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Rain]

 

 

On Friday, December 02, 2016 at 6:20 PM, Oliblish said:

There are always non-zero administrative costs and that have to be paid by any charitable organization.  The fact that administrative costs are deducted from a different donations bucket than the other donations doesn't make it 100% overhead free.  There is overhead, it is just being paid from the tithing donation fund instead of the humanitarian fund.  The actual efficiency of the operation can only be calculated if if those overhead costs are known.  I am not saying that there is fraud or even that the system is inefficient.  We just don't know because they keep the numbers secret.

There are some charities where a wealthy donor provides matching funds to other donors.  I donated to one of these once to support the Japan tsunami disaster relief.  I believe it was Steve Young who was making the matching donations.  I think it was a good thing but I don't think you can argue that 200% of my donations go to the cause.

If I donate $800 to a charity and someone else pays $200 to the same charity to pay overhead, is that really any different than me paying $600 plus $200 overhead and someone else paying $200 that goes directly to those in need?  In the end there is money coming from multiple sources and money goes out for overhead and to those in need.  It is 80% efficient, and I don't think it really matters which donor is paying for overhead vs. the needy.

I was on a board for a charity where 100% of the donations coming in went to the charitable cause and there was an endowment fund for administration costs. I do not know how it was originally set up as it has been going on for decades and I was only a part of of it for the last couple. 

Though at sometime before the last few decades there was a donation to administration, everything that was donated later (after I was a part of it) went to the cause. So at least since 1995 100% that came in each year went to the cause and not administration.

And yes, that can make a big difference in efficiency.

Edited December 4, 2016 by Rain

[Rain]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

What are the overhead costs fir Fast Offerings? 

Tithing slips and fast offering envelops for one. Checks for people receiving funds...     Minimal, but still there.

Edited December 4, 2016 by Rain

[california boy]

I agree that the church is probably one of the most effective charitable organizations.  But I am sure the accountants that work for the church get paid.  While fast offerings and humanitarian funds are designated for taking care of the poor, in general the church spends a very small amount on charity work.  I would still donate to the church over many other charitable organizations, mostly because I trust it more.  But let's not pretend that the church doesn't have overhead and administrative costs like every other organization.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Rain said:

Tithing slips and fast offering envelops for one. Checks for people receiving funds...     Minimal, but still there.

 

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I agree that the church is probably one of the most effective charitable organizations.  But I am sure the accountants that work for the church get paid.  While fast offerings and humanitarian funds are designated for taking care of the poor, in general the church spends a very small amount on charity work.  I would still donate to the church over many other charitable organizations, mostly because I trust it more.  But let's not pretend that the church doesn't have overhead and administrative costs like every other organization.

Those things are paid for from the tithing funds, which are a donation separate and apart from fast offerings and humanitarian services. Tithing essentially funds the maintenance and operation of the Church; that's its purpose, to fulfill all of the Church's divinely appointed responsibilities, not just helping the poor and needy. So one of the things it does is to provide the infrastructure for helping the poor and needy, including office supplies such as envelopes and donation slips, so that 100 percent of the money donated to helping the needy can be used for that purpose. 

Edited December 5, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I agree that the church is probably one of the most effective charitable organizations.  But I am sure the accountants that work for the church get paid.  While fast offerings and humanitarian funds are designated for taking care of the poor, in general the church spends a very small amount on charity work.  I would still donate to the church over many other charitable organizations, mostly because I trust it more.  But let's not pretend that the church doesn't have overhead and administrative costs like every other organization.

It is my understanding that there are zero administrative costs pertaining to fast offerings, and that 100% of fast offerings go to charitable efforts. Am I incorrect?

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Those things are paid for from the tithing funds, which are a donation separate and apart from fast offerings and humanitarian services. Tithing essentially funds the maintenance and operation of the Church; that's its purpose, to fulfill all of the Church's divinely appointed responsibilities, not just helping the poor and needy. So one of the things it does is to provide the infrastructure for helping the poor and needy, including office supplies such as envelopes and donation slips, so that 100 percent of the money donated to helping the needy can be used for that purpose. 

This question was asked: What are the overhead costs for Fast Offerings?

I was only answering that question,  not the question of who covers the costs.

 

[Bernard Gui]

18 hours ago, Rain said:

Tithing slips and fast offering envelops for one. Checks for people receiving funds...     Minimal, but still there.

Oh... I forgot. we also have to add the utility bills for the time the recipients spend in the bishop's office, the bandwidth on the electronic bank transfers, the cost of printing the section on fast offerings in the handbook, the zippered envelopes the deacons use to collect, the envelope and postage to mail the check to the doctor, the gas for the RS president's car when she visited to assess needs, the suit and tie the bishop bought when he became bishop, and the % of the cost of the building time usage/construction pro-rated for the time devoted to fast offering issues. It's really starting to add up. It's a wonder there's anything left to give to the needy. Did I forget anything else?   Did you forget the smiley face icon?

None of which is paid for out of the Fast Offering fund.

Besides, the comparative cost of a slip of paper with a mortgage payment is infinitesimal. I still vote for no overhead for Fast Offerings. [Edited emoticon]

Edited December 5, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

I agree that the church is probably one of the most effective charitable organizations.  But I am sure the accountants that work for the church get paid.  While fast offerings and humanitarian funds are designated for taking care of the poor, in general the church spends a very small amount on charity work.  I would still donate to the church over many other charitable organizations, mostly because I trust it more.  But let's not pretend that the church doesn't have overhead and administrative costs like every other organization.

What is the overhead for Fast Offerings?

How much do you think the Church spends on the poor?

It is not unusual for our ward to be making mortgage, utility, and medical payments for several families at a time. This adds up to a lot of money when multiplied across the worldwide Church. But when the bishop announces we need more F.O. help, it always comes in and often results  in a surplus.

Do you also factor in food, house furnishings and other goods and services the Church and the members provide? Think about all the moving costs the elders quorum saves the members from paying! I'm always amazed when I visit the Bishops Storehouse at the resources the Church allocates to the needy. 

Rather than fault the Church, I give it three cheers for what it does as an organization and as individuals. We are a giving Church and it makes me very happy to a part of it.

There is nothing to prevent a person from giving an offering many times over the actual cost of two meals. If everyone did that, there would be no poor or hungry among us. Fast Offerings are a way to live the Law of Consecration.

Edited December 5, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

It is my understanding that there are zero administrative costs pertaining to fast offerings, and that 100% of fast offerings go to charitable efforts. Am I incorrect?

As a bishop and ward clerk, I administered the fast offering fund in our ward. At the end of the month, the account balance had to be $0.00. If we had a surplus it was allocated to a ward with a deficit. If we were the ones with the deficit, a transfer was made to zero it out. 100% of the donations were used for charity.

If possible, we tried to help more with food and commodities orders from the Bishops Storehouse and Deseret Industries, thereby freeing up the recipient's funds to pay their bills. Our ward's goal has always to be a ward with surpluses, not deficits. I reckon worldwide the FO donations don't meet the needs and moneys have to be moved from other accounts to zero the account.

I'm having a hard time imagining where the overhead idea with FO is coming from.

Edited December 5, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

Once in a bishop training meeting, one of the brethren reported that some members were upset that church welfare recipients were getting butter from the Storehouse instead of cheaper margarine. Our stake president responded, "Of course they get butter. They are eating at the Lord's table." Food for thought.

[Rain]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Oh... I forgot. we also have to add the utility bills for the time the recipients spend in the bishop's office, the bandwidth on the electronic bank transfers, the cost of printing the section on fast offerings in the handbook, the zippered envelopes the deacons use to collect, the envelope and postage to mail the check to the doctor, the gas for the RS president's car when she visited to assess needs, the suit and tie the bishop bought when he became bishop, and the % of the cost of the building time usage/construction pro-rated for the time devoted to fast offering issues. It's really starting to add up. It's a wonder there's anything left to give to the needy. Did I forget anything else?   Did you forget the smiley face icon?

None of which is paid for out of the Fast Offering fund.

Besides, the comparative cost of a slip of paper with a mortgage payment is infinitesimal. I still vote for no overhead for Fast Offerings. 

I thought you were asking a serious question. 

Most of the things you mentioned would not be overheard because they also would be donated.  

I happen to think the process is amazing and wish more charities worked like it does. The cost of overhead being covered by tithing funds is a good thing to me and I would assume that even critics of the church would think it is a good thing. I don't know why you would be unkind by rolling your eyes at my answer. 

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎12‎/‎2‎/‎2016 at 5:06 PM, Bernard Gui said:

I've never considered the parable of the sower or the Tree of Life visions as comedy routines. Maybe they deserve a second look.

We all have to make our choice sooner or later no matter how smart we are. Jesus made it very simple to understand and Lehi described it with vivid precision.

I don't know how my comments are construed as a "comedy routine" aside from the outright dismissal from some people. If you want to understand why people leave I truly hope you will listen to people...and even believe them. You seem to be incapable of understanding the experience I described which is really sad, especially if you are working to invite people back.

Quote

It really is this simple. We all look at things and we make our choices. We are invited to the dinner and we choose to go or not. Making it complicated only makes matters worse.

One cannot deny that many who leave the Church were not committed to it in the first place. Jesus described them as having no root. Lehi says they just wander off. There's nothing shameful or evil about that. I don't disparage them. It's what happens. Hopefully they find what they need someplace else or maybe they will choose to return.

No one has denied that that is true for many people. What I am arguing against is your assertion that this applies to everyone who leaves. Your insistence that you are right in describing another group of people despite many testimonials from people saying that pattern doesn't universally apply, simply illustrates your lack of understanding. Seriously, I hope you learn to listen to people so that you can understand them better.

[HappyJackWagon]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

As a bishop and ward clerk, I administered the fast offering fund in our ward. At the end of the month, the account balance had to be $0.00. If we had a surplus it was allocated to a ward with a deficit. If we were the ones with the deficit, a transfer was made to zero it out. 100% of the donations were used for charity.

If possible, we tried to help more with food and commodities orders from the Bishops Storehouse and Deseret Industries, thereby freeing up the recipient's funds to pay their bills. Our ward's goal has always to be a ward with surpluses, not deficits. I reckon worldwide the FO donations don't meet the needs and moneys have to be moved from other accounts to zero the account.

I'm having a hard time imagining where the overhead idea with FO is coming from.

It's not complicated. Are there overhead costs to maintain a bishop's storehouse? The building, electricity, purchase and transportation of goods, employees at church HQ who monitor program, the cost of checks & banking, to name a few.

Just because you don't see overhead costs at the local level doesn't mean the costs don't exist as the program is made available to the local level.

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎12‎/‎3‎/‎2016 at 5:23 PM, Bernard Gui said:

At the end of the month, the ward Fast Offering account balance has to be $0.00. That means if there is a surplus it goes to the stake and if there is a deficit, there is a transfer made to bring it to 0. 

In my area it doesn't work this way. There is no monthly reconciliation. If my ward takes in $10,000 in FO but only distributes $5000, that would leave us in the black $5000. That money is not immediately sucked away by HQ. The next month we only take in $5000 in FO but distribute $6000. We are working in the red for that month but still in the black between the 2 months. At the end of the year, the ledger is balanced to $0 where excess funds are sent to HQ to be used in whatever way they choose.

[Gray]

On 12/2/2016 at 5:17 PM, Bernard Gui said:

Well, in this case we are seeking eternal life. That path is marked well for us. We can follow or not as we wish.

I'm not sure that's actually the path. The path is really to become more complete and whole - to become a Christ-like human being. If the path is just seeking some kind of reward, it sounds like a Walter Donovan-esque quest. 

 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

I thought you were asking a serious question. 

Most of the things you mentioned would not be overheard because they also would be donated.  

I happen to think the process is amazing and wish more charities worked like it does. The cost of overhead being covered by tithing funds is a good thing to me and I would assume that even critics of the church would think it is a good thing. I don't know why you would be unkind by rolling your eyes at my answer. 

It was a serious question. I thought you were making a joke and responded accordingly. I'm sorry I didn't take your answer seriously. Absolutely no offense was intended. 

[bluebell]

On 12/3/2016 at 3:38 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't recall discussing a person. Who was it? 

I said this to you previously-

So what about someone who leaves the church because they have prayed and sincerely believe that God wants them to go to a different church (i know someone that this happened to)?

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I'm not sure that's actually the path. The path is really to become more complete and whole - to become a Christ-like human being. If the path is just seeking some kind of reward, it sounds like a Walter Donovan-esque quest. 

 

If becoming more "complete and whole" or more "Christ-like" did not have its own reward, if we believed that it would lead to eternal suffering, then we would not seek that path.  We cannot avoid self-interest in our quest for good.  I agree with Bernard, eternal life is the ultimate path.  It is the path of good, it is the path of completeness and wholeness, etc.  God appeals to our self-interest in scriptures because we should be invested in our ultimate well-being.

Edited December 5, 2016 by pogi

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

If becoming more "complete and whole" or more "Christ-like" did not have its own reward, if we believed that it would lead to eternal suffering, then we would not seek that path.  We cannot avoid self-interest in our quest for good.  I agree with Bernard, eternal life is the ultimate path.  It is the path of good, it is the path of completeness and wholeness, etc.  God appeals to our self-interest in scriptures because we should be invested in our ultimate well-being.

Well, I agree we can never totally remove self-interest from what motivates us. We're always looking to get rewards or avoid punishment, but these are lower-order motivators. I think our focus should more be on becoming than on what kind of goodies we think we can get. The transformation is its own reward, so self interest is still there, but it's not so much the focus of the spiritual path. 

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't know how my comments are construed as a "comedy routine" aside from the outright dismissal from some people. If you want to understand why people leave I truly hope you will listen to people...and even believe them. You seem to be incapable of understanding the experience I described which is really sad, especially if you are working to invite people back.

No one has denied that that is true for many people. What I am arguing against is your assertion that this applies to everyone who leaves. Your insistence that you are right in describing another group of people despite many testimonials from people saying that pattern doesn't universally apply, simply illustrates your lack of understanding. Seriously, I hope you learn to listen to people so that you can understand them better.

The words of Jesus and two Book of Mormon prophets (who faced it in their own family) on this issue are not to be taken lightly. After 60 years of experience with people I know or come to know who have become inactive or left the Church, I have come to know that this parable and these visions are correct and don't need augmentation, apology, or qualification. I'm fine if we don't agree. It isn't the first and probably won't be the last time. We all have to choose if we stay or walk away, whatever the reason. In the end, we will account to Jesus for our choices. I'm certain he is full of mercy.

You are mistaken to think I do not listen to, understand, or care for them because I insist on holding to my position. Nor do I fault you for insisting you are right. We may disagree, but in no way does this diminish my concern and feelings of charity for them. I have shared those feelings and actions openly and frankly here. 

Edited December 5, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

38 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I said this to you previously-

So what about someone who leaves the church because they have prayed and sincerely believe that God wants them to go to a different church (i know someone that this happened to)?

OK. Got it.

I can't evaluate an unknown individual, even if I were inclined to do so.

Edited December 5, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So you were talking hypothetically, then.

How is "i know someone that this happened to" hypothetical??

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I'm not sure that's actually the path. The path is really to become more complete and whole - to become a Christ-like human being. If the path is just seeking some kind of reward, it sounds like a Walter Donovan-esque quest. 

 

Gaining eternal life and becoming complete and whole like Christ are just two different ways to say the exact same thing.