ksfisher Posted March 17, 2017 Posted March 17, 2017 1 hour ago, rongo said: 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. How do you handle people who, if you didn't pay for their rent out of fast offerings would be headed to a homeless shelter or the streets? Is there much of that that you have to deal with?
HappyJackWagon Posted March 17, 2017 Posted March 17, 2017 2 hours ago, rongo said: 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. It's nice to hear stories about GA's answering questions directly. I agree and understand about the one account which is why I often make my assertion of "fungibility of funds" argument that everyone loves so much. When all money goes into one account it's hard to say that tithing dollars paid for X but not Y. Regardless, that's a different argument. But this has not always been the same. Think about the way the church is organized legally. It is a corporation sole. Has it always been so? No. Over the years the church has employed multiple legal structures which requires some kind of variance in operations. The simple act of monetizing tithing and fast offerings is a huge change but the corporate structure is also big. This is just my feeling because I don't have any proof (because the church keeps financial details very private) but it's hard for me to see how the church would have chosen one financial structure for accounts and always maintained that structure. Also, the 1 account idea is a bit simplistic when you think about the many sources of income funneling in from other church assets and businesses. Sometimes people just need help paying a bill, even if it doesn't cure the problem. You should listen to the podcast I referenced earlier. It contrasts the church's corporate model of planning, saving, and investing for the future with the Fishes and Loaves model of spending what is available to help those who need it now. IOW- Jesus didn't give the people 1/2 of the fishes and loaves so that he could save some for later to help people the next day. He used what was available with faith the future needs would be met with future resources. It's an interesting idea but very antithetical to the current corporate structure and operation of finances in the church
rongo Posted March 17, 2017 Posted March 17, 2017 25 minutes ago, ksfisher said: How do you handle people who, if you didn't pay for their rent out of fast offerings would be headed to a homeless shelter or the streets? Is there much of that that you have to deal with? If the Church paying rent is literally the only thing keeping them off the streets or out of a homeless shelter, then there are more fundamental self-reliance issues than simply being a little short every month. Often, people need to move to a place that is more affordable for them, and I have used fast offerings to help them relocate (deposit, first month's rent, moving truck, etc.). People don't end up homeless, in my experience --- they end up relocating, and downsizing in many cases (house to apartment, etc.). Or, moving in with family or friends until they can be self-reliant (homeless by the government's definition [McKinney-Vento], but not by mine). Church assistance usually shields people from having to do such things (downsizing, selling things, getting rid of things they can't afford, stop spending money on non-necessities, etc.), and thus doesn't really help them. They're forced to do these things if Church assistance is off the table. Some other bishops in our stake have adopted my rule of thumb, after discussing this in welfare committee (bishops in the stake and a stake presidency member): does the assistance concretely help them towards self-reliance, or does it just postpone the reckoning? If it doesn't actually help them, then that is a strong reason not to give it. People can be very bitter about this (especially when they've become accustomed to church assistance), and I try to be loving and empathetic. It helps that my family is a paragon of self-reliance --- I'm not asking them to anything my family doesn't do, isn't willing to do, or wouldn't do in their situation. We were a one-vehicle family for years, even though there are six of us (two or more vehicles are not a necessity). We are very rarely able to go on trips, eat out, buy new clothes, etc. We live on just my income as a teacher. It's inconvenient, but you live within your means, and you make it work on your income --- or you increase your income. It is also my experience that people who habitually need assistance are almost never tithe payers. And, they lack the faith to make that part of their good-faith effort as a requirement of the assistance. 1
ksfisher Posted March 17, 2017 Posted March 17, 2017 (edited) 10 minutes ago, rongo said: If the Church paying rent is literally the only thing keeping them off the streets or out of a homeless shelter, then there are more fundamental self-reliance issues than simply being a little short every month. Often, people need to move to a place that is more affordable for them, and I have used fast offerings to help them relocate (deposit, first month's rent, moving truck, etc.). People don't end up homeless, in my experience --- they end up relocating, and downsizing in many cases (house to apartment, etc.). Or, moving in with family or friends until they can be self-reliant (homeless by the government's definition [McKinney-Vento], but not by mine). Church assistance usually shields people from having to do such things (downsizing, selling things, getting rid of things they can't afford, stop spending money on non-necessities, etc.), and thus doesn't really help them. They're forced to do these things if Church assistance is off the table. Some other bishops in our stake have adopted my rule of thumb, after discussing this in welfare committee (bishops in the stake and a stake presidency member): does the assistance concretely help them towards self-reliance, or does it just postpone the reckoning? If it doesn't actually help them, then that is a strong reason not to give it. People can be very bitter about this (especially when they've become accustomed to church assistance), and I try to be loving and empathetic. It helps that my family is a paragon of self-reliance --- I'm not asking them to anything my family doesn't do, isn't willing to do, or wouldn't do in their situation. We were a one-vehicle family for years, even though there are six of us (two or more vehicles are not a necessity). We are very rarely able to go on trips, eat out, buy new clothes, etc. We live on just my income as a teacher. It's inconvenient, but you live within your means, and you make it work on your income --- or you increase your income. It is also my experience that people who habitually need assistance are almost never tithe payers. And, they lack the faith to make that part of their good-faith effort as a requirement of the assistance. My stake is the place where other bishops help their fast offering recipients relocate to Edited March 17, 2017 by ksfisher 2
HappyJackWagon Posted March 17, 2017 Posted March 17, 2017 12 minutes ago, rongo said: If the Church paying rent is literally the only thing keeping them off the streets or out of a homeless shelter, then there are more fundamental self-reliance issues than simply being a little short every month. Often, people need to move to a place that is more affordable for them, and I have used fast offerings to help them relocate (deposit, first month's rent, moving truck, etc.). People don't end up homeless, in my experience --- they end up relocating, and downsizing in many cases (house to apartment, etc.). Or, moving in with family or friends until they can be self-reliant (homeless by the government's definition [McKinney-Vento], but not by mine). Church assistance usually shields people from having to do such things (downsizing, selling things, getting rid of things they can't afford, stop spending money on non-necessities, etc.), and thus doesn't really help them. They're forced to do these things if Church assistance is off the table. Some other bishops in our stake have adopted my rule of thumb, after discussing this in welfare committee (bishops in the stake and a stake presidency member): does the assistance concretely help them towards self-reliance, or does it just postpone the reckoning? If it doesn't actually help them, then that is a strong reason not to give it. People can be very bitter about this (especially when they've become accustomed to church assistance), and I try to be loving and empathetic. It helps that my family is a paragon of self-reliance --- I'm not asking them to anything my family doesn't do, isn't willing to do, or wouldn't do in their situation. We were a one-vehicle family for years, even though there are six of us (two or more vehicles are not a necessity). We are very rarely able to go on trips, eat out, buy new clothes, etc. We live on just my income as a teacher. It's inconvenient, but you live within your means, and you make it work on your income --- or you increase your income. It is also my experience that people who habitually need assistance are almost never tithe payers. And, they lack the faith to make that part of their good-faith effort as a requirement of the assistance. I understand the sentiment of this as a way of reducing abuses of "habitual" users BUT it seems quite heartless to me to refuse assistance to a person who really needs it if it doesn't fix their situation and make them self-reliant. If that were the measure for all humanitarian aid, the LDS church would never feed starving children in 3rd world countries. If I knew my bishop held that POV regarding fast offerings I wouldn't ever donate to FO but rather choose to help others on my own.
rongo Posted March 17, 2017 Posted March 17, 2017 10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I understand the sentiment of this as a way of reducing abuses of "habitual" users BUT it seems quite heartless to me to refuse assistance to a person who really needs it if it doesn't fix their situation and make them self-reliant. If that were the measure for all humanitarian aid, the LDS church would never feed starving children in 3rd world countries. If I knew my bishop held that POV regarding fast offerings I wouldn't ever donate to FO but rather choose to help others on my own. I agree. As I said, I try to be led by the Spirit and not let my inclinations dictate everything. And, everything is case-by-case and really depends on the circumstances and the person. You are correct that I am mostly talking about the abuses of habitual users. You don't find it heartless, do you, if a person, say, wants help paying an electric bill, and a bishop asks them when they get paid next, and asks them to contact the electric company and try to get an extension? Or to contact a landlord/bank, and pay rent/mortgage in arrears? I think too often people regard the role of the Church as one of never allowing a person to be late on something. I've been late on payments before or needed to make arrangements, without going to the Church. I think that should be the first option, and family second, before ever considering the Church (and that is the counsel from the Church on welfare). But too often, the Church is the first and only option, and the bishop is heartless if he tries to help them be self-reliant first. 2
HappyJackWagon Posted March 17, 2017 Posted March 17, 2017 (edited) 13 minutes ago, rongo said: I agree. As I said, I try to be led by the Spirit and not let my inclinations dictate everything. And, everything is case-by-case and really depends on the circumstances and the person. You are correct that I am mostly talking about the abuses of habitual users. You don't find it heartless, do you, if a person, say, wants help paying an electric bill, and a bishop asks them when they get paid next, and asks them to contact the electric company and try to get an extension? Or to contact a landlord/bank, and pay rent/mortgage in arrears? I think too often people regard the role of the Church as one of never allowing a person to be late on something. I've been late on payments before or needed to make arrangements, without going to the Church. I think that should be the first option, and family second, before ever considering the Church (and that is the counsel from the Church on welfare). But too often, the Church is the first and only option, and the bishop is heartless if he tries to help them be self-reliant first. No. But that's not what you originally said. You also said "I'm not asking them to anything my family doesn't do, isn't willing to do, or wouldn't do in their situation." I think it is a very dangerous standard to say "I can do it, why can't you?" I'm not trying to be rude but I find that to be a very prideful kind of judgment. And I say that recognizing that for many years that was my mindset too. "I can attend all my meetings, why can't you?" or "I can pay all my tithing, fast offerings and still put money into savings, so why can't you?" I just don't think that works and isn't a method mindset for righteous judgment. ETA- BTW, I really respect your honesty and noble intent even if I sometimes disagree with your methods Edited March 17, 2017 by HappyJackWagon
rongo Posted March 17, 2017 Posted March 17, 2017 27 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I understand the sentiment of this as a way of reducing abuses of "habitual" users BUT it seems quite heartless to me to refuse assistance to a person who really needs it if it doesn't fix their situation and make them self-reliant. 1) We would need to define "really needs it." What would the consequence of not helping be? Credit score hit? Disconnect? Collections calls? Angry landlord? It is a factor to consider, where I live, if one is facing an electric disconnect and we're in the 115-120 degree heat wave mode of summer. Even then, though, people needing their electric bill paid often are wanting the Church to pay $600 + --- for a monthly bill. If/when I pay that, I make it clear that I won't pay it again. I have a 3400 sq. foot home and our electric never exceeds $250, but we also don't keep our house at 60 degrees in July. People have to change their habits as well. 2) "If it doesn't fix their situation," then is the assistance really needed? I have made it clear before that I will pay this and that, but you will be responsible to pay all of these upcoming bills. Meaning, you need to see that you spend your next check on those. To me, this is a step in "fixing their situation." If that were the measure for all humanitarian aid, the LDS church would never feed starving children in 3rd world countries. I don't think this is comparable. Not even close.
rongo Posted March 17, 2017 Posted March 17, 2017 (edited) 11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: No. But that's not what you originally said. You also said "I'm not asking them to anything my family doesn't do, isn't willing to do, or wouldn't do in their situation." I think it is a very dangerous standard to say "I can do it, why can't you?" I'm not trying to be rude but I find that to be a very prideful kind of judgment. And I say that recognizing that for many years that was my mindset too. "I can attend all my meetings, why can't you?" or "I can pay all my tithing, fast offerings and still put money into savings, so why can't you?" I just don't think that works and isn't a method mindset for righteous judgment. I don't think you're being rude. I think that we tiptoe around too much with members, and we don't give enough tough love or frank advice. And they are no better for it --- we're not actually helping them. It can be done in love, too. Sometimes people have complained to the stake president, and he has pointed out how much more they make than Bishop rongo and his family. I don't think this is prideful so much as it helps them (if they're open to becoming self-reliant) to repent (make concrete changes). Most of welfare need is lifestyle and warped view of needs/wants. My family is a rare fossil that doesn't have smart phones. *Every* family seeking assistance has smart phones, and that bill is always paid first. Is it heartless to teach people to pay their housing and utility costs before paying their large smartphone/data bills? Even if that means they may need to be without a smartphone for the time being? ETA- BTW, I really respect your honesty and noble intent even if I sometimes disagree with your methods Ditto. I respect your honesty and fairness, even when you don't see things the same way. Edited March 17, 2017 by rongo 1
HappyJackWagon Posted March 17, 2017 Posted March 17, 2017 5 minutes ago, rongo said: I don't think this is comparable. Not even close. Why not? It fits within the paradigm of a leader deciding only to help someone if it helps them to become self-reliant which means that if it doesn't help them become self-reliant we shouldn't do it. I'm using this one example to show why that philosophy doesn't work.
rongo Posted March 17, 2017 Posted March 17, 2017 3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Why not? It fits within the paradigm of a leader deciding only to help someone if it helps them to become self-reliant which means that if it doesn't help them become self-reliant we shouldn't do it. I'm using this one example to show why that philosophy doesn't work. The reasons for the need in 3rd World countries aren't even close to the same as the reasons for need in 1st World countries (usually). And, withholding humanitarian aid from starving 3rd world country people isn't going to help them become self-reliant. These things are beyond their control. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 (edited) On 3/17/2017 at 3:40 PM, rongo said: The reasons for the need in 3rd World countries aren't even close to the same as the reasons for need in 1st World countries (usually). And, withholding humanitarian aid from starving 3rd world country people isn't going to help them become self-reliant. These things are beyond their control. Did you get a chance to listen to this podcast. I don't think it will change your views overnight but it may raise questions that open a new POV for consideration. I'm especially interested in your view about the difference between the corporate church model and the loaves and fishes model. http://www.athoughtfulfaith.org/182-lds-inc-and-the-commodification-of-faith-ron-josh-madson/ Edited March 20, 2017 by HappyJackWagon
rongo Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 Sorry! I hate podcasts, and have never listened to one. I'll read anything anyone gives me, though. Can you summarize the salient points in it? I am personally critical of much of the corporate-ization of the Church, so I could see me finding much of interest in it, depending. Thanks!
HappyJackWagon Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 4 minutes ago, rongo said: Sorry! I hate podcasts, and have never listened to one. I'll read anything anyone gives me, though. Can you summarize the salient points in it? I am personally critical of much of the corporate-ization of the Church, so I could see me finding much of interest in it, depending. Thanks! Rongo, Rongo, Rongo...how can you hate something you've never tried? Do you ever listen to talk radio or cable news? It's really no different except that there are myriad more topics to be discussed with a variety of guests and/or panels. Do you have a way to listen while driving or working out or .... ? I have a 45 minute commute each way to work so it works great for me. But don't cut off the possibility. 1
Tacenda Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 When the church mentions that it's humantiarian efforts come from the members, does that mean the fast offerings? I wish the church would be more clear on this.
ksfisher Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 18 minutes ago, Tacenda said: When the church mentions that it's humantiarian efforts come from the members, does that mean the fast offerings? I wish the church would be more clear on this. Where else would the church's humanitarian efforts come from? The church is made up of members. Without members the church is just a bunch of empty buildings.
HappyJackWagon Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 8 minutes ago, ksfisher said: Where else would the church's humanitarian efforts come from? The church is made up of members. Without members the church is just a bunch of empty buildings. Perhaps this means that the humanitarian efforts are not financed via the independent church income streams like investments or businesses. Without members, the church (which is really only a legal corporation) is still a legal corporation. 1
ksfisher Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Perhaps this means that the humanitarian efforts are not financed via the independent church income streams like investments or businesses. Without members, the church (which is really only a legal corporation) is still a legal corporation. You're right in the legal sense.
HappyJackWagon Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 20 minutes ago, ksfisher said: You're right in the legal sense. BTW- if that's right, the church's corporate philanthropy really stinks. That would mean the church only donates a portion of what is donated to them but does not donate any funds that it produces (via investment and business ventures).
rongo Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 45 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Rongo, Rongo, Rongo...how can you hate something you've never tried? Do you ever listen to talk radio or cable news? It's really no different except that there are myriad more topics to be discussed with a variety of guests and/or panels. Do you have a way to listen while driving or working out or .... ? I have a 45 minute commute each way to work so it works great for me. But don't cut off the possibility. My commute is three miles. The church is less than one mile away. I actually don't listen to talk radio, and we don't have cable or satellite. It would annoy my wife if I listened to podcasts during family time at home (streaming audio or video are blocked at the school where I work). So what do we listen to? We have music, including a large set of records from the 60s and 70s --- and more modern CDs, of course. I know that many people (including most Church members) think my family is a fossil, but it has a lot of advantages. We spend a lot of family time together, and play games, read books, watch movies, play sports, etc. (I find that even most active LDS families spend very little actual family time together that is not watching TV). My kids will be among the few without any electronics addictions or porn problems (and yes, we do preemptively address these things, and aren't blithely ignorant of the realities of the modern world, school influences, etc.). I will see if I can listen to it later tonight. An executive summary would also be helpful . . . 2
HappyJackWagon Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 3 minutes ago, rongo said: My commute is three miles. The church is less than one mile away. I actually don't listen to talk radio, and we don't have cable or satellite. It would annoy my wife if I listened to podcasts during family time at home (streaming audio or video are blocked at the school where I work). So what do we listen to? We have music, including a large set of records from the 60s and 70s --- and more modern CDs, of course. I know that many people (including most Church members) think my family is a fossil, but it has a lot of advantages. We spend a lot of family time together, and play games, read books, watch movies, play sports, etc. (I find that even most active LDS families spend very little actual family time together that is not watching TV). My kids will be among the few without any electronics addictions or porn problems (and yes, we do preemptively address these things, and aren't blithely ignorant of the realities of the modern world, school influences, etc.). I will see if I can listen to it later tonight. An executive summary would also be helpful . . . http://www.athoughtfulfaith.org/182-lds-inc-and-the-commodification-of-faith-ron-josh-madson/ From the website about this podcast... Quote How did The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints become an over-bloated corporate bureaucracy? What are the implications for the way in which the church practices religion, and for the way it inspires faith? Ron and Josh Madson address these questions and share some reflections about how all of this squares up with the God’s passion for justice and Jesus’ call for the relief of the poor.
ksfisher Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: BTW- if that's right, the church's corporate philanthropy really stinks. That would mean the church only donates a portion of what is donated to them but does not donate any funds that it produces (via investment and business ventures). Does the church use the corporate revenue to support infrastructure? If so then 100% of a members donation is going to help people in need while the corporate revenue pays the overhead. However this may be answered I do think that the church does more than what it publicizes. I think if does follow the Savior's advice to, when giving alms, not let the left hand know what the right is doing (or was it the other way around?).
HappyJackWagon Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 1 minute ago, ksfisher said: Does the church use the corporate revenue to support infrastructure? If so then 100% of a members donation is going to help people in need while the corporate revenue pays the overhead. However this may be answered I do think that the church does more than what it publicizes. I think if does follow the Savior's advice to, when giving alms, not let the left hand know what the right is doing (or was it the other way around?). I don't think so, but there's really no way to know since the church won't tell us. There have been estimates that the church collects $6-$7 billion in tithing revenue each year. If all infrastructure was paid for through business venture funds then the church would be spending $6-$7 billion a year on humanitarian aid and other financial aid. It would also mean the church is incorrect in describing how tithing dollars are utilized.
probablyHagoth7 Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 On 3/17/2017 at 1:47 PM, ksfisher said: My stake is the place where other bishops help their fast offering recipients relocate to Is providing for oneself (and others) better there? If so, in what way?
ksfisher Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 8 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said: Is providing for oneself (and others) better there? If so, in what way? I'm not sure what you mean.
Recommended Posts