Mass Exodus from Church?

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

http://www.unitedcsf.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/2015-990-Tax-Return.pdf

Try finding that info for the church

 

So don't donate to the Church if that bothers you.

 

[bluebell]

27 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

http://www.unitedcsf.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/2015-990-Tax-Return.pdf

Try finding that info for the church

 

So it looks like they were given about 7.5 million in donations/grants.  Doesn't that illustrate my point that people often give to charities without first checking to see how 'good' the charity is?  Who would give money to a charity that they knew received an F- on a charity watchdog site?

It seems like the only people who would give to this charity are those who either trust the charity or don't trust the watchdog site.  Either way, it all boils down to trust.  People give money to charities based on trust of what they are told about them and rarely on actual knowledge they've personally vetted.

[lostindc]

There is no question that the Church is in trouble when it comes to membership numbers.  Save the CFR because I am not hunting down the stats for South American and African countries and the estimates of those that identify as Mormon compared to the Church stats for each country.  In the states, the total missionaries in the field (age change) jumped but the results did not follow.  The internet is hurting many religions, not just Mormonism.  I don't believe Mormonism can survive in terms of membership numbers unless some doctrinal changes occur.  That is my opinion and my opinion really doesn't matter.

Edited December 7, 2016 by lostindc

[James Tunney]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So it looks like they were given about 7.5 million in donations/grants.  Doesn't that illustrate my point that people often give to charities without first checking to see how 'good' the charity is?  Who would give money to a charity that they knew received an F- on a charity watchdog site?

It seems like the only people who would give to this charity are those who either trust the charity or don't trust the watchdog site.  Either way, it all boils down to trust.  People give money to charities based on trust of what they are told about them and rarely on actual knowledge they've personally vetted.

Should we allow hucksters to thrive?  Do you think putting you head in the sand contributes to fraud or not?  Isn't mis-placed trust the very essence of fraud like we see in the ponzi and mlm schemes that plague Utah?

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

Should we allow hucksters to thrive?  Do you think putting you head in the sand contributes to fraud or not?  Isn't mis-placed trust the very essence of fraud like we see in the ponzi and mlm schemes that plague Utah?

Fraud is illegal.  Are you suggesting that the church is doing something illegal and the government just doesn't know?

[ksfisher]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's actually a pretty big deal. MANY people investigate the efficiency of a charity before making a donation. You can use sites like this to make it a bit easier. It is rather shocking how inefficient many charities are but even the best charities have expenses.

https://www.charitywatch.org/home

ETA- for example- it shows Catholic Relief Service with an A+ rating and 90% efficiency.

Cancer Research Institute receives an A at 85% efficiency versus the United Cancer Support Foundation with an F- and 9% efficiency, etc. etc.

So if a person is wanting to contribute to a cancer charity, they would likely do better donating to the Cancer Research Institute and avoiding the United Cancer Support Foundation. All charities are not equal, even if they are well-meaning.

I think that you're right that donors should do some fairly simple research before giving to a cause.  The difference I see is that as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints we believe that the church is the kingdom of God on Earth.  We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ stands at the head of this church and is led by His prophets and apostles.  We believe the promise of the Lord in Malachi 3:8 and 3:10 where it states:

"Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings."

"Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it."

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

25 minutes ago, lostindc said:

There is no question that the Church is in trouble when it comes to membership numbers.  Save the CFR because I am not hunting down the stats for South American and African countries and the estimates of those that identify as Mormon compared to the Church stats for each country.  In the states, the total missionaries in the field (age change) jumped but the results did not follow.  The internet is hurting many religions, not just Mormonism.  I don't believe Mormonism can survive in terms of membership numbers unless some doctrinal changes occur.  That is my opinion and my opinion really doesn't matter.

So lostindc just knows the Church is in trouble and can't survive unless it changes its doctrines.

He says he can't prove it; he just feels it in his heart.

His faith is touching.

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I think that you're right that donors should do some fairly simple research before giving to a cause.  The difference I see is that as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints we believe that the church is the kingdom of God on Earth.  We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ stands at the head of this church and is led by His prophets and apostles.  We believe the promise of the Lord in Malachi 3:8 and 3:10 where it states:

"Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings."

"Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it."

 

 

Members of the Church know this to be true, so we trust those who are called to serve God and to lead us. We don't worry about their honesty; it is a given for those whom the Lord places in that position, as they are called and appointed by divine revelation.

Richard Bushman calls this "the routinization of charisma." It works for us, as it has done from the very first.

 

Edited December 7, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So don't donate to the Church if that bothers you.

Scott, that's not a very mature response to this dialogue.

Many people have chosen not to donate to the church for these reasons. I am not one of those people but I do recognize the problem that exists and its a problem of the church's own making.

This conversation has meandered a bit, but this all comes down to the fact that the church is not transparent in its financial operations. We can argue about why that is, or if it is justified, but it seems clear that the church does not release financials which leaves us in a position where we can only wonder and speculate about church finances. Some choose to trust without question. Others would like more information.

FYI- for anyone who is interested there is a new ThoughtfulFaith podcast about donations in commonwealth countries like New Zealand and England where the church is required by law to disclose some financial information. I haven't listened to it yet but it sounds like it's right up the alley of this discussion.  http://www.athoughtfulfaith.org/lds-finances-what-happens-to-our-donations-chris-mace/

[pogi]

19 hours ago, ksfisher said:

The first word in your quote is "perhaps."  You've stated that this concept is clear from "prophetic teaching."  In my experience and learning prophetic teaching does not begin with the qualifier "perhaps." 

Let's assume that you are right (not saying that you are), let's assume that the prophet was, as you suggest, just casually kicking around an idea or was simply speculating on the matter in the middle of his conference report to the entire church.  Again, lets assume you are right - if the prophet of the church can see reason to allow such speculation, why the hard line from you?  Can you not at least entertain the thought like the prophet?

Now, I will show you that when the word "perhaps" is taken in context, you will see that the prophet was not merely stabbing in the dark in the middle of his conference report as to if the Lord "uses" and "places" men outside the church for his own purposes.  

 

Quote

 

God, the Father of us all, uses the men of the earth, especially good men, to accomplish his purposes. It has been true in the past, it is true today, it will be true in the future.

“Perhaps the Lord needs such men on the outside of His Church to help it along,” said the late Elder Orson F. Whitney of the Quorum of the Twelve. “They are among its auxiliaries, and can do more good for the cause where the Lord has placed them, than anywhere else. … Hence, some are drawn into the fold and receive a testimony of the truth; while others remain unconverted … the beauties and glories of the gospel being veiled temporarily from their view, for a wise purpose. The Lord will open their eyes in His own due time. God is using more than one people for the accomplishment of His great and marvelous work. The Latter-day Saints cannot do it all. It is too vast, too arduous for any one people. … We have no quarrel with the Gentiles. They are our partners in a certain sense.” (Conference Report, April 1928, p. 59.)

 

Do you see how the word "perhaps" is in reference to the fact that the Lord uses and places good men outside the church.  The word "perhaps" is a consideration as to why the Lord uses men outside the church, not a speculation as to if He uses them or places them outside the church.  Read the bold and underlined parts, it is clear that this is not just speculation.  In fact, read the whole talk, it is beyond clear, even using examples, that this is true.

 

Edited December 7, 2016 by pogi

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

So it looks like they were given about 7.5 million in donations/grants.  Doesn't that illustrate my point that people often give to charities without first checking to see how 'good' the charity is?  Who would give money to a charity that they knew received an F- on a charity watchdog site?

It seems like the only people who would give to this charity are those who either trust the charity or don't trust the watchdog site.  Either way, it all boils down to trust.  People give money to charities based on trust of what they are told about them and rarely on actual knowledge they've personally vetted.

Some people are boneheads. I grant that. I wasn't trying to argue against the idea that some people don't care about efficiency. I took your previous comment to imply that most people don't care. For all I know it's evenly split but I shared the charity watch info to show that many do care and as we can see by the United Cancer charity, there's good reason to care and do homework before donating.

$7.5 million donated and only $675,000 of that actually makes it to the charity. That has got to be approaching criminal fraud. Very sad.

 

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Some people are boneheads. I grant that. I wasn't trying to argue against the idea that some people don't care about efficiency. I took your previous comment to imply that most people don't care. For all I know it's evenly split but I shared the charity watch info to show that many do care and as we can see by the United Cancer charity, there's good reason to care and do homework before donating.

$7.5 million donated and only $675,000 of that actually makes it to the charity. That has got to be approaching criminal fraud. Very sad.

 

I'm not saying that most people don't care, i'm saying that most people trust either the charity or what someone says about the charity and don't do their own research.  They decide to donate or not based on that trust and not on actual information personally vetted.  

Edited December 7, 2016 by bluebell

[HappyJackWagon]

49 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I think that you're right that donors should do some fairly simple research before giving to a cause.  The difference I see is that as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints we believe that the church is the kingdom of God on Earth.  We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ stands at the head of this church and is led by His prophets and apostles. 

But do we believe God is the church's CFO or is it run by humans following human laws and human accounting standards? Do we believe that the church is infallible? That it's incapable of making mistakes? Do we believe that leaders should be unaccountable IF there is misuse or error? If so, I think I've missed that doctrine in the scriptures.

We believe the promise of the Lord in Malachi 3:8 and 3:10 where it states: "Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings."

Interestingly, this verse refers to priests who were misusing tithing funds, not about people not paying their tithing.

"Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it."

So what if people decided to pay offerings to other sources. Would they still receive blessings from God or would they not qualify for blessings if the donation is not made to the church?

 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not saying that most people don't care, i'm saying that most people trust either the charity or what someone says about the charity don't do their own research.  They decide to donate or not based on that trust and not on actual information personally vetted.  

I agree with that.

Don't you think it would be wise to research and understand how a charity uses its funds before donating? If so, wouldn't it be great to have access to information that would allow for an informed decision instead of being required to place blind trust in an organization simply because that organization chooses not to make information available?

[HappyJackWagon]

54 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Members of the Church know this to be true, so we trust those who are called to serve God and to lead us. We don't worry about their honesty; it is a given for those whom the Lord places in that position, as they are called and appointed by divine revelation.

Richard Bushman calls this "the routinization of charisma." It works for us, as it has done from the very first.

 

I tend to think leaders should be accountable to those they lead. Church leaders are first and foremost, servants, not kings sitting in their high castle.

You don't think its important to worry about their honesty? We just assume that anyone the "Lord places in that position" is beyond reproach? I think that's a frightening mentality. There are simply too many examples of how leaders have not lived up to the blind trust placed in them. George P Lee comes to mind.

 

[James Tunney]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Fraud is illegal.  Are you suggesting that the church is doing something illegal and the government just doesn't know?

I'm saying we don't know what they are doing and I'm skeptical of an organization that basically says trust us but doesn't allow verification. It tells me that there is something the church doesn't want the members to know. 

Early on the church stopped disclosure because of the massive building in the late 50s and early 60s. The church almost went bankrupt and had to borrow from wall street to stay afloat. Now, I think the church doesnt want to have the members see some of its dealings that might be preferential to insiders and/or the amount of money and assets it has. If the members knew how much money the church had, there might be less incentive to sacrifice the widow's mite.

But of course this is all speculation due to the lack of disclosure.

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

I'm saying we don't know what they are doing and I'm skeptical of an organization that basically says trust us but doesn't allow verification. It tells me that there is something the church doesn't want the members to know. 

Early on the church stopped disclosure because of the massive building in the late 50s and early 60s. The church almost went bankrupt and had to borrow from wall street to stay afloat. Now, I think the church doesnt want to have the members see some of its dealings that might be preferential to insiders and/or the amount of money and assets it has. If the members knew how much money the church had, there might be less incentive to sacrifice the widow's mite.

But of course this is all speculation due to the lack of disclosure.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/4386439-155/new-mormon-church-owned-skyscraper-brings-high

I think the church is doing well money wise. I don't think a lot of members realise just how well. 

Edited December 7, 2016 by Tacenda

[pogi]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I tend to think leaders should be accountable to those they lead. Church leaders are first and foremost, servants, not kings sitting in their high castle.

You don't think its important to worry about their honesty? We just assume that anyone the "Lord places in that position" is beyond reproach? I think that's a frightening mentality. There are simply too many examples of how leaders have not lived up to the blind trust placed in them. George P Lee comes to mind.

 

Generally speaking, I would agree with you, but in the case of the church, I trust the brethren implicitly with my money.  I have no doubts or reserves whatsoever.  I would not say that the brethren are beyond reproach, but I don't think that any one individual could breach our trust without widespread corruption in the top ranks.  The auditors give us a guarantee that the money is being used according to church policy and approved budgets.  That is good enough for me.  Again, it would take mass corruption for church policy and approved budgets to become reproachable.  The only reason I would want to see exactly how my money is being used is out of pure curiosity, but not because I feel that my trust in the church depends upon it.

[Tacenda]

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

Generally speaking, I would agree with you, but in the case of the church, I trust the brethren implicitly with my money.  I have no doubts or reserves whatsoever.  I would not say that the brethren are beyond reproach, but I don't think that any one individual could breach our trust without widespread corruption in the top ranks.  The auditors give us a guarantee that the money is being used according to church policy and approved budgets.  That is good enough for me.  Again, it would take mass corruption for church policy and approved budgets to become reproachable.  The only reason I would want to see exactly how my money is being used is out of pure curiosity, but not because I feel that my trust in the church depends upon it.

https://www.amazon.com/Mormon-Hierarchy-Wealth-Corporate-Power/dp/1560852356/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1481143694&sr=8-1&keywords=michael+quinn

I wonder what is in this book. I'm sure the church wouldn't knowingly try to rip it's member off. But I know from statements I've read of employees that the church could do better in being more conservative with members donations. 

I'm bothered with the expense put into videos etc. Or things that seem frivolous. If we as members are asked to live within our means or not to be all about material things, why not the church? 

ETA: Or maybe I'm a big scrooge. And the Christmas Concerts are wonderful and the Mormon.org videos too.

Edited December 7, 2016 by Tacenda

[ksfisher]

49 minutes ago, pogi said:

Let's assume that you are right (not saying that you are), let's assume that the prophet was, as you suggest, just casually kicking around an idea or was simply speculating on the matter in the middle of his conference report to the entire church.  Again, lets assume you are right - if the prophet of the church can see reason to allow such speculation, why the hard line from you?  Can you not at least entertain the thought like the prophet?

Now, I will show you that when the word "perhaps" is taken in context, you will see that the prophet was not merely stabbing in the dark in the middle of his conference report as to if the Lord "uses" and "places" men outside the church for his own purposes.  

 

Do you see how the word "perhaps" is in reference to the fact that the Lord uses and places good men outside the church.  The word "perhaps" is a consideration as to why the Lord uses men outside the church, not a speculation as to if He uses them or places them outside the church.  Read the bold and underlined parts, it is clear that this is not just speculation.  In fact, read the whole talk, it is beyond clear, even using examples, that this is true.

 

I don't think that anyone would contend that all of God's children, whether they are members of the church or not, can accomplish good.  The Lord desires all his children to do good.  But they idea that the Lord would not want certain individuals to be part of his church or that he would lead them out of his church in not found anywhere in prophetic teaching or the scriptures.

[bluebell]

31 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree with that.

Don't you think it would be wise to research and understand how a charity uses its funds before donating? If so, wouldn't it be great to have access to information that would allow for an informed decision instead of being required to place blind trust in an organization simply because that organization chooses not to make information available?

When it comes to the church, I really don't think it matters (and i don't consider it blind trust).

That might sound weird but from my point of view, if i didn't trust the church, why would I be a member?  If the church is being dishonest and doing something nefarious with the money, then there is a lot more at stake than where my donations are going?  Honestly, donations and tithing would be the very very least of my concerns.

I trust the church for many good reasons, and I believe that I have access to all the information i need right now to make an informed decision on that.  It's o.k. with me that none of that information is tax records.

[Jeanne]

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

http://www.sltrib.com/news/4386439-155/new-mormon-church-owned-skyscraper-brings-high

I think the church is doing well money wise. I don't think a lot of members realise just how well. 

I saw this the other day...definitely a necessity.

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

I'm saying we don't know what they are doing and I'm skeptical of an organization that basically says trust us but doesn't allow verification. It tells me that there is something the church doesn't want the members to know. 

Early on the church stopped disclosure because of the massive building in the late 50s and early 60s. The church almost went bankrupt and had to borrow from wall street to stay afloat. Now, I think the church doesnt want to have the members see some of its dealings that might be preferential to insiders and/or the amount of money and assets it has. If the members knew how much money the church had, there might be less incentive to sacrifice the widow's mite.

But of course this is all speculation due to the lack of disclosure.

I think my answer to HJW is also relevant here, so i'll refer you to it above.  

[ksfisher]

39 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So what if people decided to pay offerings to other sources. Would they still receive blessings from God or would they not qualify for blessings if the donation is not made to the church?

Who would they be making to offering to?  D&C 104 15-16 teaches us that we need to do this in the Lord's way:

"And it is my purpose to provide for my saints, for all things are mine.

But it must needs be done in mine own way; and behold this is the way that I, the Lord, have decreed to provide for my saints, that the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low."

When we give to charities we bless the lives of others.  However, the Lord has commanded us to pay our tithes and offerings, and to place those offerings at the disposal of the bishops of the church so that he can care for the poor in his way. 

 

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Interestingly, this verse refers to priests who were misusing tithing funds, not about people not paying their tithing.

I guess you could argue for this interpretation, but you could also argue that half way through the previous chapter there is a shift from speaking to the priests in particular to the people in general.  Regardless, the Lord seems to be saying that not bringing your tithes and offerings to him is a form of robbery from him.