The Church has $32 Billion in the Stock Market

[Marginal Gains]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think the big criticism here is far less that the Church doesn't give it all away, its that the Church gives less than a penny per hundred dollars away.  It's weird the Church is so boastful about giving to humanitarian causes, but when you break it down, they give far less than most Americans.  Let me explain:

Americans make an average of $35,000/year.

Americans give an average of $2,500 a year

The rate of giving for an average American is  7% of income.

On the other hand the Church gives approx. .1%.  

Its not that the Church has no humanitarian effort.  It's that the effort into humanitarianism by the Church shows that the Church has no to little interest in the venture.  It seems the only reason the Church gives anything is to boast about it.  

The humanitarian programmes, from a Church spending perspective, can perhaps be viewed as a marketing cost. It’s $40 million a year spent advertising the Church.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Marginal Gains said:

The humanitarian programmes, from a Church spending perspective, can perhaps be viewed as a marketing cost. It’s $40 million a year spent advertising the Church.

Precisely..."it's a good time to talk about all those guys in yellow shirts now" says Elder Oaks.  

[Gray]

51 minutes ago, Gray said:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2012/12/sacred-transformations?lang=eng

 

 

President Nelson:

 

The prosperity gospel is alive and well in Mormonism. This is another worldly superstition that has crept into the church.

Here's another one advocating that tithing should be paid before children are fed:

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2017/05/saturday-afternoon-session/the-language-of-the-gospel?lang=eng

 

Quote

One day during those difficult times, I heard my parents discussing whether they should pay tithing or buy food for the children.

On Sunday, I followed my father to see what he was going to do. After our Church meetings, I saw him take an envelope and put his tithing in it. That was only part of the lesson. The question that remained for me was what we were going to eat.

Early Monday morning, some people knocked on our door. When I opened it, they asked for my father. I called for him, and when he arrived, the visitors told him about an urgent sewing order they needed as quickly as possible. They told him that the order was so urgent that they would pay for it in advance. That day I learned the principles of paying tithing and the blessings that follow.

This needs to stop.

[Benjamin Seeker]

9 minutes ago, Gray said:

Here's another one advocating that tithing should be paid before children are fed:

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2017/05/saturday-afternoon-session/the-language-of-the-gospel?lang=eng

 

This needs to stop.

Yeah, this is really crazy.

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

For a person who doesn't care, you sure spend a lot of time "caring" here on this board.  And your opinion seems to matter, at least on this board, because people respond to you when you comment. It's all very mysterious, perhaps, but there we are.

And while I am impressed that you have scripture verses popping into your head, what did you actually intend to say by posting them?

In the recent press release, the Church said that its two most fundamental budgeting principles are the following:

• Expenditures will not exceed forecasted revenue.
• The budget for operating expenses will not increase at a more rapid rate than anticipated tithing contributions.

What I infer from this is that they want to the church to perpetually grow its financial empire--the basic principle is that while sure, the "operating expenses" of spreading the gospel, redeeming the dead, and perfecting the Saints is great and all that, what's most important is that the corporate empire perpetually grows. (On the other hand I might be misinterpreting the relationship between "expenditures", "revenue", "operating expenses", and "tithing contributions." These are the hazards of dealing with a lack of transparency.)

To the extent I had a real point behind that scriptural quote, it would be that in general, nobody should hoard money. In terms of the Church, I would admire a specific saving goal of, say, fully funding its pension obligations, enough savings to continue operations in a severe, seven-year economic crisis, and enough cash on hand to pay all expenses for a year. But the idea of perpetually saving up money for a rainy day--even after you have enough money to recover from 100 huricains--seems wrong to me.

 

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Perhaps you can come up with some practical, real-world alternative uses for the Church's 32 billion dollar stock portfolio that would benefit the people of the world, while at the same time continuing to maintain a financial stability that would enable the Church to continue to benefit them.

Perhaps.

 

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

As for charitable work, people who are themselves well off, the millions nay billions of people in the world for whom food, clothing and shelter are already secured, perhaps they should consider donating to whatever relief organization they feel will best help those who are in need.

Here is an interesting statistic. By a conservative estimate, Bill Gates has saved the lives of 122 million people. 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/14/bill-gates-philanthropy-warren-buffett-vaccines-infant-mortality

The amount of good that some people are doing in the world is staggering.

[hope_for_things]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

O.K.,if I am such a jerk, perhaps you could clarify why it is that you have repeatedly argued that a cruel and officious LDS Church demands that poverty-stricken members pay tithing first, when in fact we both know of no such actual case.  You have deliberately drawn the false conclusion from generic Conference addresses that the LDS Church is rigid and non-pragmatic in application of those pay-tithing-first standards.  You have no reason to believe that is an actual policy of the Church, yet you insist that it must be.  If you had an inkling of knowledge about the Mormon Church, you'd know how absurd that claim is.  And then you have the temerity to ask me for a CFR.  You are the one making unsupported allegations.  Where is your evidence?

I can understand that you are frustrated -- just like any flimflam artist whose tricks are so obvious.  Try some sincere, rational argument instead.  That might be the basis for a real discussion.

Apparently you think its ok to repeatedly lie about what I've said.  I've never characterized the church with the terms cruel and officious, and I continue to correct you on this point and you continue to accuse me of using this language.  This is going on 4 or 5 corrections that I've made and you continue to beat this false drum.  

You also won't respond to my CFR, which I find strange because it seems like CFRs are pointless if a person can just dismiss them out of hand without any response or correction.  

I have already provided multiple proofs where the church has instructed members specifically in poverty stricken nations to pay their tithing first.  You dismiss these as generic, and you claim the church has a different standard for the poor, yet you have provided absolutely zero evidence to support this claim. 

And lastly you resort to personal insults and attacks, questioning my Mormonism.  Your employment of these tactics has essentially ended this exchange, because I'm done.  But I'll leave you with a few other messages from the church to members that instruct them to pay their tithing first.  I will remind you that these messages are given to all members everywhere, not just to middle class members on the Wasatch front, but to members in poverty all over the world. 

https://www.lds.org/youth/article/tithing-first?lang=eng

Quote

I invite you to pay your tithing to the Lord first, before you meet any other financial obligations. I invite you to put your trust in the Lord and, as He Himself said, “Prove me now herewith.” As you do so and as you place your tithing obligation to the Lord as the first priority of all of your other financial obligations

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2006/10/the-law-of-tithing?lang=eng

Quote

Your attitude is important in paying tithing. Pay it because you love the Lord and have faith in Him. Pay it willingly with a thankful heart. Pay it first, even when you think you do not have enough money to meet your other needs.

https://www.lds.org/youth/for-the-strength-of-youth/tithes-and-offerings?lang=eng

Quote

As I sat at the table pleading with the Lord for His help and mercy, the Holy Ghost opened to my view a beautiful and comforting manifestation of the Savior’s love. I was able to see the money owed for household expenses with a new perspective as the sacred priorities of life were brought to my remembrance. I knew that our Heavenly Father wanted me to have the blessings promised to those who faithfully paid tithes and offerings. I also knew that tithe paying should be a joyful act of love, devoid of fear and worry.

As the Spirit of the Lord filled me, I found myself bearing testimony of convictions I had long held firm and sacred. My voice broke the silence of the kitchen as I declared that I would rather lose the water source to my house than lose the living water offered by the Savior. I would rather have no food on our table than be without the Bread of Life. I would prefer to endure the darkness and discomfort of no electricity than to forfeit the Light of Christ in my life. I would rather abide with my children in a tent than relinquish my privilege of entering the house of the Lord.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2009/07/latter-day-saint-voices/could-tithing-ease-my-worries?lang=eng

Quote

After some events related to a civil war in Central America, my father’s business went bankrupt. He went from about 200 full-time employees to fewer than five sewing operators who worked as needed in the garage of our home. One day during those difficult times, I heard my parents discussing whether they should pay tithing or buy food for the children.

On Sunday, I followed my father to see what he was going to do. After our Church meetings, I saw him take an envelope and put his tithing in it. 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2017/04/the-language-of-the-gospel?lang=eng

Quote

If our tithing and offerings are the first obligations met, our commitment to this important gospel principle will be strengthened and the likelihood of financial mismanagement will be reduced.

https://www.lds.org/topics/family-finances?lang=eng

Quote

The most important step toward achieving financial well-being is to pay tithing first—no excuses and no exceptions. President Gordon B. Hinckley counseled: “Some of you have money problems. I know that. There is never enough money in your homes. I know that. You are struggling to get along. What is the cure? The only thing I know of is payment of tithing. … It was God who made the promise that He would open the windows of heaven and pour down blessings upon those who walked honestly with Him in the payment of their tithes and offerings, and He has the capacity to keep His promise.”

https://www.lds.org/topics/family-finances?lang=eng

Quote

Among those who do not sacrifice there are two extremes: one is the rich, gluttonous man who won’t and the other is the poor, destitute man who believes he can’t. But how can you ask someone who is starving to eat less? Is there a level of poverty so low that sacrifice should not be expected or a family so destitute that paying tithing should cease to be required?

One of the first things a bishop must do to help the needy is ask them to pay their tithing. Like the widow, if a destitute family is faced with the decision of paying their tithing or eating, they should pay their tithing. 

https://lds.org/ensign/2005/05/tithing-a-commandment-even-for-the-destitute?lang=eng

Quote

“If paying tithing means that you can’t pay for water or electricity, pay tithing. If paying tithing means that you can’t pay your rent, pay tithing. Even if paying tithing means that you don’t have enough money to feed your family, pay tithing. The Lord will not abandon you.”

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2012/12/sacred-transformations?lang=eng

 

[Marginal Gains]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Apparently you think its ok to repeatedly lie about what I've said.  I've never characterized the church with the terms cruel and officious, and I continue to correct you on this point and you continue to accuse me of using this language.  This is going on 4 or 5 corrections that I've made and you continue to beat this false drum.  

You also won't respond to my CFR, which I find strange because it seems like CFRs are pointless if a person can just dismiss them out of hand without any response or correction.  

I have already provided multiple proofs where the church has instructed members specifically in poverty stricken nations to pay their tithing first.  You dismiss these as generic, and you claim the church has a different standard for the poor, yet you have provided absolutely zero evidence to support this claim. 

And lastly you resort to personal insults and attacks, questioning my Mormonism.  Your employment of these tactics has essentially ended this exchange, because I'm done.  But I'll leave you with a few other messages from the church to members that instruct them to pay their tithing first.  I will remind you that these messages are given to all members everywhere, not just to middle class members on the Wasatch front, but to members in poverty all over the world. 

https://www.lds.org/youth/article/tithing-first?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2006/10/the-law-of-tithing?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/youth/for-the-strength-of-youth/tithes-and-offerings?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2009/07/latter-day-saint-voices/could-tithing-ease-my-worries?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2017/04/the-language-of-the-gospel?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/topics/family-finances?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/topics/family-finances?lang=eng

https://lds.org/ensign/2005/05/tithing-a-commandment-even-for-the-destitute?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2012/12/sacred-transformations?lang=eng

 

I’d have been banned from the thread a long time ago if I’d behaved to you the way Robert F. Smith has conducted himself in your exchanges with him.

Edited June 1, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[rockpond]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Exactly how long is "always" for taking care of the needy?

Does giving it all away now while it is available ensure "always" while governments break down along with civilization? How many fast offerings will the church get if the whole world is starving ?

I don't know about you but I actually believe in this kind of stuff and I am glad the church will have a stash while I or my great grandchildren will not.

Exactly how many years will it have to last?

I believe it as well. 

We certainly shouldn’t give it all away.  I’ve never suggested such an absurdity.  

Always means always.  Forever.  No limit on the years.  But you raise a good point:  if governments and civilization break down, what would $32B in stock provide for us or the poor?

[hope_for_things]

Just now, Marginal Gains said:

I’d have been banned from the thread a long time ago if I’d behaved to you the way Robert F. Smith has conducted himself in your exchanges.

Thanks, there clearly is a hierarchy of privilege, and I'm not one of the elites, that's for sure.   

[Scott Lloyd]

34 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks, there clearly is a hierarchy of privilege, and I'm not one of the elites, that's for sure.   

I’ve been thread-banned before because someone (you?) didn’t like the way I addressed you. 

The fact is, this board has for some time been creeping toward being what Kiwi, before his recent board banning, called “Mormon Discussions light.” So let’s cut the crap about “hierarchy of privilege” and “one of the elites.”

[kllindley]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2012/12/sacred-transformations?lang=eng

 

 

President Nelson:

 

The prosperity gospel is alive and well in Mormonism. This is another worldly superstition that has crept into the church.

I don't disagree that there is an element of prosperity gospel in the Church.  It's really just a variation on the universal "Just World Theory," so as long as the Church is made up of individual humans, we're susceptible to it.  However, to claim that the quotes above promote prosperity gospel is nonsense.  I absolutely do not read them that way.  Not at all.  Prosperity Gospel is that righteousness is correlated with prosperity.  The teachings above are specifically about one law of tithing.  It is the fairest and most generous principle I can imagine in the Gospel.  Even absent Heavenly intervention, in which I firmly believe, from a human psychological perspective I couldn't think of a better system for promoting a healthy mindset toward money.  The great news is that if people don't find this teaching valuable or functionally useful in their lives, they are 100% free to discontinue the practice.  The idea that teaching what LDS Leaders obviously believe is a divine mandate and blessing is somehow morally questionable is ludicrous.    

[stemelbow]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’ve been thread-banned before because someone (you?) didn’t like the way I addressed you. 

The fact is, this board has for some time been creeping toward being what Kiwi, before his recent board banning, called “Mormon Discussions light.” So let’s cut the crap about “hierarchy of privilege” and “one of the elites.”

Unless you're thread banned willy nilly without any sort of explanation and without any rules possibly being broken, I'm not sure you have eyes to see.  I'm currently unable to access a couple of live threads because I've been banned and there's no notice or explanation given to me.  I have no idea what I've done.  When I log out and read what I've wrote, the extent of my participation has been something along the lines of "good point" in some cases.  I think it might be if I respond to certain posters I get thread banned.  I can't be sure though.  it just seems like if ever I quote a certain poster or two and respond I get banned, no matter what is said.  

You and Smac, and certainly our former participator Kiwi, are interesting cases though.  Sometimes I"ve seen something along the lines of unfair treatment by mods towards you guys too.  But, I can only see what the mods respond to, or make note of.  I have no idea what actions are being taken against you, as they mods to do me, without any notice.  

There have been times I've been banned from nearly all the active threads at the same time.  In some case the action is taken nearly immediately after I respond once in a thread.  There does seem to be some privileged few around here, but I wouldn't say you are one of them.  You seem to be a victim, at times, of the mods who want to appear fair by disciplining defenders too.  But the imbalance, in the sum, seems pretty clear to me.  

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks, there clearly is a hierarchy of privilege, and I'm not one of the elites, that's for sure.   

I've noticed that the mods are quite responsive, but you need to report any poster for not responding to a CFR properly.  I'm not into reporting things here, but in the case of people blowing off a CFR issued, that should be reported if you expect the rule on this to be enforced.  I know that the mods can't read and see every post and many times probably don't even know one has been issued.

The repeated false accusations against you should also be reported, IMO.  You've correct him and courteously asked him to stop several times and he has ignored your requests.

Edited June 1, 2018 by ALarson

[hope_for_things]

22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’ve been thread-banned before because someone (you?) didn’t like the way I addressed you. 

The fact is, this board has for some time been creeping toward being what Kiwi, before his recent board banning, called “Mormon Discussions light.” So let’s cut the crap about “hierarchy of privilege” and “one of the elites.”

Just because you have been banned, doesn't mean you might not have been given a much longer leash than others.  Its kind of like star treatment with the referees in the NBA as an example, vs. how rookies are treated.  This is human nature and it happens on this board from what I see.  

[hope_for_things]

5 hours ago, ALarson said:

I've noticed that the mods are quite responsive, but you need to report any poster for not responding to a CFR properly.  I'm not into reporting things here, but in the case of people blowing off a CFR issued, that should be reported if you expect the rule on this to be enforced.  I know that the mods can't read and see every post and many times probably don't even know one has been issued.

The repeated false accusations against you should also be reported, IMO.

Thanks ALarson, I did report it last night, but since I never use that feature, I'm really not sure how it works or if I should expect to hear anything back.  

It is difficult to keep up in fast moving threads that require pages of reading to understand a report. If the now missing culprit continues, report again.

[ALarson]

33 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The fact is, this board has for some time been creeping toward being what Kiwi, before his recent board banning, called “Mormon Discussions light.” So let’s cut the crap about “hierarchy of privilege” and “one of the elites.”

There's no comparison between what Kiwi's abrasive form of posting was to how Hope_For_Things posts here.  From what I saw with Kiwi, he was given many chances before he was banned and the mods were extremely fair with him.

[stemelbow]

5 hours ago, ALarson said:

I've noticed that the mods are quite responsive, 

I've never, at least not that I can remember, had a mod be responsive to any report I've issued.  I've only issued a report in very extreme and obvious cases of board rules violations.  Well, I suppose they've responded at times by banning me from a thread, as I recall.  But that banning has never come with a comment of any sort notifying why the ban.  

You might want to consider that those obvious violations weren't obvious at all and that you were likely at fault. 

[hope_for_things]

This is an interesting quote from Joseph F. Smith in a 1907 general conference address that I saw floating around social media.  I pulled in some more of the quote for context.   I wonder if his vision will ever be realized?   Does the church have enough tithes in the storehouse to change the tithing first teaching, or even to stop asking for tithing all together?  

Quote

I want to say another thing to you, and I do so by way of congratulation, and that is, that we have, by the blessing of the Lord and the faithfulness of the Saints in paying their tithing, been able to pay off our bonded indebtedness.  Today the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints owes no a dollar that it cannot pay at once.  At last we are in a position that we can pay as we go.  We do not have to borrow any more, and we wont have to if the Latter-day Saints continue to live their religion and observe this law of tithing.  It is the law of revenue to the Church.  Furthermore, I want to say to you, we may not be able to reach it right away, but we expect to see the day when we will not have to ask you for one dollar of donation for any purpose, except that which you volunteer to give of your own accord, because we will have tithes sufficient in the storehouse of the Lord to pay everything that is needful for the advancement of the kingdom of God.  I want to live to see that day, if the Lord will spare my life.  

https://books.google.com/books?id=IKHtAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA7-PA7&lpg=RA7-PA7&dq="we+expect+to+see+the+day+when+we+will+not+have+to+ask"&source=bl&ots=ztSR1Qa_RI&sig=NM6a8rMIDpSKxkrPfSkpP-i4Two&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiW6ouY1bLbAhVVHTQIHb6sDbwQ6AEINTAB#v=onepage&q="we expect to see the day when we will not have to ask"&f=false

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Thus an average 100,000/year wage earner would only have to give 122 bucks to people in need and 6 hours a year helping someone in need in order to surpass the Church's contributions.  There would be absolutely no need for someone to give all they have in order to have grounds to criticize at all.  And since we know the Church has far more than tithing revenue, that suggests a person would actually have to give far less than these estimates in order to be on good grounds to criticize the Church.  

I know you probably don't really care about accuracy or fairness at all, but for others who may read. . . I don't believe that tithing really should be used for humanitarian purposes.  That is the function of Fast Offerings and donations to the Humanitarian Aid fund.  Tithing should be spent to help the Church accomplish its primary purpose: To bring all people to Christ.   

 

Further, did you actually read Elder Oak's talk, or just look for tidbits to use in your criticism?  

Quote

For example, in the year 2015 we had 177 emergency response projects in 56 countries. In addition, we had hundreds of projects that impacted more than a million people in seven other categories of assistance, such as clean water, immunization, and vision care. For more than 30 years the magnitude of these efforts has averaged about 40 million dollars a year.

"These efforts:"  emergency response, clean water, immunization, and vision care. That 40 million figure is not about total charitable giving or welfare expenditures.  That is specifically the Humanitarian Aid money and hours spent in those categories.    

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, kllindley said:

I know you probably don't really care about accuracy or fairness at all,

I don't?  I think I do.  

1 minute ago, kllindley said:

but for others who may read. . . I don't believe that tithing really should be used for humanitarian purposes.  That is the function of Fast Offerings and donations to the Humanitarian Aid fund.  Tithing should be spent to help the Church accomplish its primary purpose: To bring all people to Christ.   

The comparison is how much a person takes in compared to how much tithing the Church takes in (tithing being only a portion of the Church's revenue and assets).  A person's income is not set aside for humanitarian purposes either.  They portion it out.  The question that is raised here is are you saying the 40 million a year average that Oaks mentioned was all from fast offerings?  If so, how would you know?  

1 minute ago, kllindley said:

 

Further, did you actually read Elder Oak's talk, or just look for tidbits to use in your criticism?  

"These efforts:"  emergency response, clean water, immunization, and vision care. That 40 million figure is not about total charitable giving or welfare expenditures.  That is specifically the Humanitarian Aid money and hours spent in those categories.    

A person's 122 dollars isn't all the moneys contributing to these efforts either.  I don't think you've really addressed the point I raised.  But, I am for accuracy and fairness.  I think that an unfair way to proceed in these discussions, kllindley.  (don't worry I'm not about reporting people for this stuff.  I've learned my lesson in trying to do that).  

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I've never, at least not that I can remember, had a mod be responsive to any report I've issued.  I've only issued a report in very extreme and obvious cases of board rules violations.  Well, I suppose they've responded at times by banning me from a thread, as I recall.  But that banning has never come with a comment of any sort notifying why the ban.  

Well, that's really too bad if this has been your experience and if what you reported was behavior that was against board rules.  I've only reported one poster for not responding to a CFR (after I gave them every opportunity to do so and even to back out of it if they wanted to) and the mods did respond.  So, I admit that I'm not real experienced in this area, but do see the mods posting and responding to other's reports.

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

There's no comparison between what Kiwi's abrasive form of posting was to how Hope_For_Things posts here.  From what I saw with Kiwi, he was given many chances before he was banned and the mods were extremely fair with him.

I didn't realize Kiwi was banned from the boards again.  I wouldn't be opposed to him coming back if he could be a little less abrasive.  I think his voice and perspective are needed.

[Marginal Gains]

17 minutes ago, kllindley said:

"These efforts:"  emergency response, clean water, immunization, and vision care. That 40 million figure is not about total charitable giving or welfare expenditures.  That is specifically the Humanitarian Aid money and hours spent in those categories.    

The $40 million dollar a year amount is for everything listed on the LDS Welfare Fact Sheet. And is funded primarily out of seperate donations made under the “Hunanitarian Aid” heading on the donations slip. 2010 was the last time the Church put the monetary amount on, but has since tried to delete all sheets from 2010 and earlier. Some bright soul archived the 2009 sheet though:

https://archive.org/details/LdsWelfareFactSheet2009

Other welfare is given out locally by Bishops and Stake Presidents out of Fast Offerings.

But you’re right, the only thing we can say with confidence is that tithing doesn’t fund the Church’s humanitarian programmes, but does fund a $32 billion stock portfolio, commercial and residential property investments and for-profit business ventures.

I’m guessing that’s not the defence you thought you were giving...

Edited June 1, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I've always thought the most important words in the referenced passage occur a few verses earlier, immediately following Judas's questioning of the Lord's wisdom/priorities: 'Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but ... '

No doubt some of the posters in this thread would prove exceptions, but I can't help but conclude that most of the Sturm und Drang surrounding this issue every single time it comes up necessarily falls into the category of 'This they say, not that they care for the poor, but _____ '.

And of course it WAS Judas... people seem to forget that part, the existence of this thread is based on Judas...

[kllindley]

Just now, stemelbow said:

I don't?  I think I do.  

The comparison is how much a person takes in compared to how much tithing the Church takes in (tithing being only a portion of the Church's revenue and assets).  A person's income is not set aside for humanitarian purposes either.  They portion it out.  The question that is raised here is are you saying the 40 million a year average that Oaks mentioned was all from fast offerings?  If so, how would you know?  

A person's 122 dollars isn't all the moneys contributing to these efforts either.  I don't think you've really addressed the point I raised.  But, I am for accuracy and fairness.  I think that an unfair way to proceed in these discussions, kllindley.  (don't worry I'm not about reporting people for this stuff.  I've learned my lesson in trying to do that).  

Great. I'm happy to hear that you do care about accuracy.  Maybe we can get somewhere.  Why do you think it is appropriate to compare individual income to church revenue?  I just got berated for several pages for suggesting we compare individual and institutional transparency.  Does that really seem fair to you?

Tithing is designated for moving the Church forward.  I think that according to the information provided by the Church, that it is intended to only be spent incidentally on helping the poor and needy.  I am saying that the 40 million does not include fast offering expenditures. I believe based on the principles the Church has disclosed about how they treat finances, that the 40 million is only from donations to the Humanitarian Aid fund and the Profit generated from its for-profit businesses (after-tax income).