Fast Offerings

[ERMD]

I no longer have access to Handbook 1 (and I don't think this is covered in it anyway), and I'm wondering if anyone here knows the answer to this.

As I understand it, fast offering funds were tracked at the stake level, and if a ward ran short of what it took in, the stake would supplement from its stake-wide fund.  I have heard that this is no longer the case, and instead, funds are simply made available locally by the Church centrally.  Is that the case?  If so, when did it start?

Let's not turn this into an argument about financial disclosure, open books, City Creek, etc.

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, ERMD said:

I no longer have access to Handbook 1 (and I don't think this is covered in it anyway), and I'm wondering if anyone here knows the answer to this.

As I understand it, fast offering funds were tracked at the stake level, and if a ward ran short of what it took in, the stake would supplement from its stake-wide fund.  I have heard that this is no longer the case, and instead, funds are simply made available locally by the Church centrally.  Is that the case?  If so, when did it start?

Let's not turn this into an argument about financial disclosure, open books, City Creek, etc.

Funds do come from one central pool.  It's been this way since at least 2002 (when I was my wards financial clerk), maybe even earlier. 

[HappyJackWagon]

22 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Funds do come from one central pool.  It's been this way since at least 2002 (when I was my wards financial clerk), maybe even earlier. 

I agree.

However, stakes also keep ledgers to show how much a ward takes in versus how much they expend. Likewise, the stake tracks overall how much it takes in versus how much it expends. If there is a shortage a SP or Bishop may request members to increase their giving. While I was bishop the SP set a goal that the ward would not expend more than 40% of what it took in so that the rest could be transferred back to SLC for distribution amongst developing countries. Obviously the institutional church has access to all funds but for tracking purposes the ward/stake ledgers are useful.

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree.

However, stakes also keep ledgers to show how much a ward takes in versus how much they expend. Likewise, the stake tracks overall how much it takes in versus how much it expends. If there is a shortage a SP or Bishop may request members to increase their giving. While I was bishop the SP set a goal that the ward would not expend more than 40% of what it took in so that the rest could be transferred back to SLC for distribution amongst developing countries. Obviously the institutional church has access to all funds but for tracking purposes the ward/stake ledgers are useful.

Perhaps it's because I've lived in a stake that always pays out more than it takes in, but I've never experienced anything like this.  This stake has access to what each ward has spent, but the funds go back and forth between the ward and church headquarters.  There are no ward or stake ledgers separate from what is in MLS (and now LCS).

[Tacenda]

I have always paid a generous fast, not to boast, just for emphasis in my comment. But if it is how HJW has mentioned that the rest goes to SL headquarters. And it's not for the poor, I just don't know how I feel good about it. Since on the tithing receipt now it mentions it will go where they need it to go, and you're not guaranteed it would go to a specific place. I guess I thought all of fast offerings stay local. Shoot.

Edited March 16, 2017 by Tacenda

[ksfisher]

8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I have always paid a generous fast, not to boast, just for emphasis in my comment. But if it is how HJW has mentioned that the rest goes to SL headquarters. And it's not for the poor, I just don't know how I feel good about it. Since on the tithing receipt now it mentions it will go where they need it to go, and you're not guaranteed it would go to a specific place. I guess I thought all of fast offerings stay local. Shoot.

Where did anyone say that it wasn't for the poor?  Fast offering funds are put into a central account that all the bishops and branch presidents in the church have access to.  This is so that poorer stakes, like mine, are not limited to how much assistance they can give.  While more well off stakes are not building up a surplus year after year.  All fast offering funds are used to assist the poor and needy. 

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I have always paid a generous fast, not to boast, just for emphasis in my comment. But if it is how HJW has mentioned that the rest goes to SL headquarters. And it's not for the poor, I just don't know how I feel good about it. Since on the tithing receipt now it mentions it will go where they need it to go, and you're not guaranteed it would go to a specific place. I guess I thought all of fast offerings stay local. Shoot.

Fast offerings are fast offerings, if they are sent to SLC, it is for greater distribution, not to put them into another fund.  Would you prefer richer places to just have access to all their funds and poorer places not to be able to have any additional funding?  Funds should only go to 'people like us' in the local community'?  Somehow I doubt you really want that.

Take the time to think the process through before complaining about it or at least ask questions. If you don't like the central fund for global access, how do you think it should be done?

Edited March 16, 2017 by Calm

[Tacenda]

53 minutes ago, Calm said:

Fast offerings are fast offerings, if they are sent to SLC, it is for greater distribution, not to put them into another fund.  Would you prefer richer places to just have access to all their funds and poorer places not to be able to have any additional funding?  Funds should only go to 'people like us' in the local community'?  Somehow I doubt you really want that.

Take the time to think the process through before complaining about it or at least ask questions. If you don't like the central fund for global access, how do you think it should be done?

I don't think it should go for real estate, malls, profit. I am not sure where it goes since it states on the tithing receipt that what ever monies come the church they decide. Just was caught unaware. There are plenty in my ward that can use the help. But I would be fine if it went for humaniarian purposes for the poor.

[ksfisher]

8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I don't think it should go for real estate, malls, profit. I am not sure where it goes since it states on the tithing receipt that what ever monies come the church they decide. Just was caught unaware. There are plenty in my ward that can use the help. But I would be fine if it went for humaniarian purposes for the poor.

What weren't you aware of?  That money donated to your ward as fast offerings could be used by bishops in other wards? 

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

What weren't you aware of?  That money donated to your ward as fast offerings could be used by bishops in other wards? 

I don't mind if the money is kept my ward/stake also or wards/stakes in the world...even non members in the world that are poor. It's just when they don't say it goes just for the poor that gets me.

Edited March 16, 2017 by Tacenda

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

I don't mind if the money is kept in the stake or wards or stakes in the world that need it for the poor.

Right, that's the purpose of and what fast offerings are used for.  However, the money is not kept by the ward or stake, but is placed in a central fast offering account.  That money is then drawn upon by bishops and branch presidents across the globe to assist the poor and needy in their areas. 

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Right, that's the purpose of and what fast offerings are used for.  However, the money is not kept by the ward or stake, but is placed in a central fast offering account.  That money is then drawn upon by bishops and branch presidents across the globe to assist the poor and needy in their areas. 

Okay then.

[ERMD]

I was in an area leadership meeting several years ago, and Bishop Causse, who was then a counselor in the Presiding Bishopric stated how he thought it miraculous that an account with over 28,000 signatories always had a surplus.

[rongo]

ERMD:

Bishop Burton explained to our stake that it has always been this way. In other words, this does not represent a change in policy or practice. There is only one checking account for the Church, and all donations go into that account. There are internal categories (e.g., tithing, fast offerings, humanitarian, etc.), but they are for bookkeeping purposes.  So it has always been technically inaccurate to consider shortages at the ward or stake level to be "covered" by moving money over from different units.

He also explained to us that since 2007, North America has been a net drain on fast offering donations (net shortage), while the Third World has actually been a net provider of fast offerings to the global church (i.e., spending less than it takes in). This is probably why HappyJack's stake strived to provide a net balance to the Church.

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, ERMD said:

I was in an area leadership meeting several years ago, and Bishop Causse, who was then a counselor in the Presiding Bishopric stated how he thought it miraculous that an account with over 28,000 signatories always had a surplus.

There are a lot more signatories than that, taking into account all bishops and branch presidents (and counselors and clerks whose names are on the two-signature checks). 

It's not really that miraculous. Pretty hard to overdraw a balance of over $6 billion + . . .  

[ERMD]

22 minutes ago, rongo said:

There are a lot more signatories than that, taking into account all bishops and branch presidents (and counselors and clerks whose names are on the two-signature checks). 

It's not really that miraculous. Pretty hard to overdraw a balance of over $6 billion + . . .  

Yeah; I think he was referring to the number of bishops and branch presidents.

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I don't think it should go for real estate, malls, profit. I am not sure where it goes since it states on the tithing receipt that what ever monies come the church they decide. Just was caught unaware. There are plenty in my ward that can use the help. But I would be fine if it went for humaniarian purposes for the poor.

If I really cared about what my donated money was used for, I would probably just give it to an organization that would tell me exactly what they were using it for.  For example, if I really wanted my fast offerings to help local people in need, there are several local charities that help local people in need, and I would probably just give the money to them.  If I really wanted my money to go towards building a mall and not helping people in need, I would find a good REIT and give them the money, and tell them it's a donation, not an investment.  Sure, they might think it's kind of odd that someone is donating money to a real estate company instead of giving it to the needy, but apparently it's quite common.

Edited March 16, 2017 by cinepro

[cinepro]

4 hours ago, rongo said:

He also explained to us that since 2007, North America has been a net drain on fast offering donations (net shortage), while the Third World has actually been a net provider of fast offerings to the global church (i.e., spending less than it takes in). This is probably why HappyJack's stake strived to provide a net balance to the Church.

That probably has a lot to do with the cost of living being so much higher in the USA.   If you're helping people with food and rent, then it's going to cost quite a bit more in some areas than others to help the same number of people.

[ksfisher]

11 hours ago, cinepro said:

That probably has a lot to do with the cost of living being so much higher in the USA.   If you're helping people with food and rent, then it's going to cost quite a bit more in some areas than others to help the same number of people.

The higher cost of living should be offset by higher wages which should allow members of the church to make a larger donation than the members in a third world country.  

I would put forward two guesses.

First, I wonder if members in North America are contributing a smaller portion of their income than they have in the past to the fast offering fund.  While the cost of living is higher, the cost of keeping up with the Jonses is even higher.

Second, I wonder if members in third world countries are willing to do more witn less.  When the Jonses next door also have nothing everyone appears to be rich.

Just things I wonder about.

 

Edited March 17, 2017 by ksfisher

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

The higher cost of living should be offset by higher wages which should allow members of the church to make a larger donation than the members in a third world country.  

I would put forward two guesses.

First, I wonder if members in North America are contributing a smaller portion of their income that they have in the past to the fast offering fund.  While the cost of living is higher, the cost of keeping up with the Jonses is even higher.

Second, I wonder if members in third world countries are willing to do more witn less.  When the Jonses next door also have nothing everyone appears to be rich.

Just things I wonder about.

 

Actually, the spending power of Americans has been dropping for some time.

Not that that is a good excuse necessarily. I just know that my yearly fast offering donation could be taken up entirely by helping one family pay their mortgage for a month or two and I like to think I give generously.

[PeterPear]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Actually, the spending power of Americans has been dropping for some time.

Not that that is a good excuse necessarily. I just know that my yearly fast offering donation could be taken up entirely by helping one family pay their mortgage for a month or two and I like to think I give generously.

Well, since the Church discourages Fast Offerings be used to pay members' installment loans, such as for automobiles and mortgages, and credit cards, then you have a good excuse.

[Rain]

 

5 hours ago, cinepro said:

That probably has a lot to do with the cost of living being so much higher in the USA.   If you're helping people with food and rent, then it's going to cost quite a bit more in some areas than others to help the same number of people.

A friend of mine posted this link on facebook last week.  

Quote

The goal for Peter Menzel and his wife Faith D’Aluision was to figure out what an average family from various parts of the world eat and how much they spend on their food for that week. They then would document the actual food and families through photos.

They started their journey in 2006. After visting 30 families in 24 different countries they have illustrated the daily eating habits by asking each family to do their shopping for a weeks worth of typical food. The authors paid for their food purchases and then took photos of them with the food that they bought.

 I hesitate to post this because some people will draw all sorts of conclusions about it that would be inaccurate.

Anyway, after looking over the foods I noticed that the family in Sudan really didn't eat much, BUT that I couldn't buy the food they ate, here in the US, for the price they gave. True, it really wouldn't cost much, but just the rice would cost me more than $1.23 (the amount the week's worth cost them).  So what must have happened was they saw how much it cost and then converted into $ rather than saw what they bought and priced it out here.  

So where I am getting at with all this is that comparing things between countries doesn't always work.  I'm sure some of us in the US could step up our offerings. That might actually be the case in Sudan as well for some people.  I think it is wise to show people how blessed they are and I hope it inspires people to give more. 

We just can't really conclude a lot of things without knowing more of the facts - just as Cinepro points out that cost of living may factor into some of the differences between countries and how much fast offerings they give. 

Edited March 17, 2017 by Rain

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, rongo said:

ERMD:

Bishop Burton explained to our stake that it has always been this way. In other words, this does not represent a change in policy or practice. There is only one checking account for the Church, and all donations go into that account. There are internal categories (e.g., tithing, fast offerings, humanitarian, etc.), but they are for bookkeeping purposes.  So it has always been technically inaccurate to consider shortages at the ward or stake level to be "covered" by moving money over from different units.

He also explained to us that since 2007, North America has been a net drain on fast offering donations (net shortage), while the Third World has actually been a net provider of fast offerings to the global church (i.e., spending less than it takes in). This is probably why HappyJack's stake strived to provide a net balance to the Church.

I find it funny that Bishop Burton would state that it has "always been this way". Of course it hasn't. Things have changed in numerous ways over the years. It would be foolish to think that tithing and fast offerings have always been collected and distributed in the same ways. That's just not possible.

Here is an interesting podcast I listened to yesterday about finances and meeting needs of the poor. In it, the guests suggest that there are monetary values placed on converts from different areas of the world and further state that dollar limits have been placed on outgoing fast offerings in 3rd world countries.. It's a fascinating discussion. http://www.athoughtfulfaith.org/182-lds-inc-and-the-commodification-of-faith-ron-josh-madson/

 

[rongo]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I find it funny that Bishop Burton would state that it has "always been this way". Of course it hasn't. Things have changed in numerous ways over the years. It would be foolish to think that tithing and fast offerings have always been collected and distributed in the same ways. That's just not possible.

I don't think he was referencing when tithing and fast offerings were paid in kind (e.g., chickens, livestock, grain, etc.). I actually don't think the church has done it any other way, and here's why. But first, some necessary background on the discussion.

Bishop Burton has been hands down the best General Authority I have experienced with answering questions. He gave a very good answer to a doctrinal question I had in the priesthood leadership meeting, and he answered all questions honestly and competently, without showing any annoyance at questions he didn't like. After the meeting, he held a session with just bishops and the stake presidency, and I asked him a hypothetical about how a fast offering shortage would be covered. Would tithing temporarily cover the shortage until money could be moved over (specifically, my question was regarding what would happen if a fast offering check were written and cashed on January 2, but fast Sunday wasn't until the 6th. Where does the money come from if no units in the stake have money in fast offerings?). He explained that I needed to understand how it works. There are not myriads of accounts (tithing, fast offerings, humanitarian, etc.) with money being transferred and moved around constantly. Can you imagine what a nightmare that would be? There is actually only one checking account in the Church, and *all* incoming funds go into that account. Including interest, business profits, donations --- everything. There are internal categories for bookkeeping purposes, but they are on paper only --- there is one and only one checking account for the Church. So, he said, it is incorrect and inaccurate to think of money being moved around at all to cover shortages. This means that tithing (and all other income sources) actually cover "shortages," such as when a ward or stake is in the red on fast offerings (it was here when he noted that North America has been in the red on fast offerings since the recession, and has not climbed in the black. Tithing and other income covers the difference). 

So, I have no reason to think that the Church has ever done its checking account any differently. Why would it have ever set up a system where money would have to be constantly transferred from account to account to "balance?" The system described by Bishop Burton is at once both the simplest and most efficient. This, of course, is for the "money era," not the "in kind" era.

This is my second go-around as a bishop, and I am quite jaded about sacred fast offerings, and need to constantly strive to discern God's will as opposed to my own thoughts. In my experience, the vast majority of North American fast offering recipients are actually not helped by the assistance --- spiritually, or temporally. In most cases, the assistance actually doesn't get them in a better place or help them be any closer to self-reliance. It simply "keeps the wolves at bay" for a month, but they will be in exactly the same position at the same time next month. Both due to lifestyle/money habits, and income. My general approach (barring the Spirit telling me otherwise, which does happen) is not to extend help if it is not going to actually help them. In other words, just because someone can't pay their utilities, rent, mortgage, car payment, etc., does not mean that it's the Church's job to ensure that they never get behind on payments, or even that they never get anything disconnected and have to reconnect. Many members view the welfare program as a backstop or a safety net that will be there for them if they get behind, so they are free to spend their money on what they want and then look to the Church when they can't meet their needs. I also find that people often insist that they have gone to family first, but family is unable to help --- but if the Church doesn't help, then magically family is able to help (i.e., most people are embarrassed about going to family, and avoid it all costs, but by not extending help, they have to go to family first). 

I think that the effects of wards and stakes not following welfare principles in extending help is spiritually damaging to recipient members. We are affluent in the west, and view "needs" much differently from other parts of the world. I think those parts of the world have some spiritual advantages over us. 

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

In my experience, the vast majority of North American fast offering recipients are actually not helped by the assistance --- spiritually, or temporally. In most cases, the assistance actually doesn't get them in a better place or help them be any closer to self-reliance. It simply "keeps the wolves at bay" for a month, but they will be in exactly the same position at the same time next month.

Added: I think that fast offering assistance in many cases works similar to farm subsidies: it keeps people afloat when they actually can't do it on their own, and thus prevents them from putting themselves in a position where they can live within their means.