kllindley Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 4 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said: 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. 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... Why? That is exactly the defense I am giving. I don't understand where you get the idea that the Church is supposed to be a charity or welfare organization. That mission is incidental to its purpose of bringing all people to Christ. 1
Marginal Gains Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, kllindley said: I don't understand where you get the idea that the Church is supposed to be a charity or welfare organization. That mission is incidental to its purpose of bringing all people to Christ. I, on the other hand, believe that charity and welfare is at the very heart of bringing people to Christ. Edited June 1, 2018 by Marginal Gains 1
stemelbow Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 2 minutes ago, kllindley said: 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? Someone earlier claimed people should not be criticizing the Church until that person sales all of his/her possessions and gives it to the poor. I compared the two (the institution and a person) to show that a person could have just as much or more humanitarian expenditure as the Church--at least in a relative/comparable way. 2 minutes ago, kllindley said: 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). However they want to do it, I suppose. I just think the Church could and should give more. But that's my preference and I have said so plenty here. An individual too should be credited with more than just the amount given to charity, in terms of helping people too. But, since the comparison showed such a stark reality, as I see it, it worked well. The Church and the individual, of course, does more than the sum designated for humanitarian causes. Whatever the case, the comparison, at least in my eyes, is very telling in how little the Church does compared to what it could do.
kllindley Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 Just now, Marginal Gains said: I, on the other hand, believe that charity and welfare is at the very heart of bringing people to Christ. And I honor your ability to believe whatever seems best to you. Why is it so hard for you to respect others with different beliefs? 1
mfbukowski Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 2 hours 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 church IS the welfare of humanity.
Marginal Gains Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 (edited) 8 minutes ago, kllindley said: And I honor your ability to believe whatever seems best to you. Why is it so hard for you to respect others with different beliefs? Because you’re wrong! 😉 Here’s what then Elder Oaks said about what you deem “incidental”... Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles warned against giving “excessive attention to definitions and boundaries among these three applications of the Lord's work” or “excluding other essential elements such as caring for the poor.” https://www.lds.org/church/news/new-handbooks-introduced-during-worldwide-training?lang=eng You say “incidental to”, I and (then) Elder Oaks say essential. Oops... Edited June 1, 2018 by Marginal Gains
rockpond Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: And of course it WAS Judas... people seem to forget that part, the existence of this thread is based on Judas... ...because a $32 billion stock fund is equivalent to purchasing an ointment to anoint the Savior prior to his death. Strawman alert: Nobody here is agreeing with Judas. Let's try to stay in the realm of reason. 1
kllindley Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 Just now, stemelbow said: Someone earlier claimed people should not be criticizing the Church until that person sales all of his/her possessions and gives it to the poor. I compared the two (the institution and a person) to show that a person could have just as much or more humanitarian expenditure as the Church--at least in a relative/comparable way. Fair enough. I think it is a poor analogy to compare the two with such vastly different purposes and functions. 4 minutes ago, stemelbow said: However they want to do it, I suppose. I just think the Church could and should give more. But that's my preference and I have said so plenty here. An individual too should be credited with more than just the amount given to charity, in terms of helping people too. But, since the comparison showed such a stark reality, as I see it, it worked well. The Church and the individual, of course, does more than the sum designated for humanitarian causes. Whatever the case, the comparison, at least in my eyes, is very telling in how little the Church does compared to what it could do. I can respect that you have a difference of perspective and value about how the Church should administer its funds. I don't understand why it's so hard to let the Church do what they believe God wants them to do.
Gray Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 57 minutes ago, kllindley said: 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. One hallmark of the prosperity gospel is that donations to one's church will bring financial blessings from God. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology Quote Prosperity theology (sometimes referred to as the prosperity gospel, the health and wealth gospel, or the gospel of success)[A] is a religious belief among some Christians, who hold that financial blessing and physical well-being are always the will of God for them, and that faith, positive speech, and donations to religious causes will increase one's material wealth. Prosperity theology views the Bible as a contract between God and humans: if humans have faith in God, he will deliver security and prosperity.
kllindley Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 8 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said: Because you’re wrong! 😉 Here’s what then Elder Oaks said about what you deem “incidental”... Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles warned against giving “excessive attention to definitions and boundaries among these three applications of the Lord's work” or “excluding other essential elements such as caring for the poor.” https://www.lds.org/church/news/new-handbooks-introduced-during-worldwide-training?lang=eng You say “incidental to”, I and (then) Elder Oaks say essential. Oops... Hmmmm. When you use "Oops. . . ." it communicates to me derision, sarcasm, and an attempt to insult. Is that what you are trying to communicate? 1
stemelbow Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 3 minutes ago, kllindley said: Fair enough. I think it is a poor analogy to compare the two with such vastly different purposes and functions. I can respect that you have a difference of perspective and value about how the Church should administer its funds. I don't understand why it's so hard to let the Church do what they believe God wants them to do. How am I not letting the Church do whatever it wants? I'm not stopping anything. I'm offering my two cents.
Gray Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 24 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: And of course it WAS Judas... people seem to forget that part, the existence of this thread is based on Judas... That's a pretty strained interpretation of that story.
Marginal Gains Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, kllindley said: Hmmmm. When you use "Oops. . . ." it communicates to me derision, sarcasm, and an attempt to insult. Is that what you are trying to communicate? Not at all. I use “Oops” in the European manner, which is to indicate a slight error may have occurred. I apologise if my pointing out Elder Oaks’ statement has put you in an awkward position. Edited June 1, 2018 by Marginal Gains
Gray Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 20 minutes ago, kllindley said: Why? That is exactly the defense I am giving. I don't understand where you get the idea that the Church is supposed to be a charity or welfare organization. That mission is incidental to its purpose of bringing all people to Christ. A few years back the church added a fourth mission to the previous three main missions of the church. The fourth mission is caring for the poor and needy. https://www.mormonwiki.com/Four-fold_Mission_of_the_Church 2
Jeanne Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 I just have to say that with the billions of investments...the Church could have brought Josh Holt home a long time ago!!☺️
kllindley Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 3 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said: Not at all. I use “Oops” in the European manner, which is to indicate a slight error may have occurred. I apologise if my pointing out Elder Oaks’ statement has put you in an awkward position. 2 minutes ago, Gray said: A few years back the church added a fourth mission to the previous three main missions of the church. The fourth mission is caring for the poor and needy. https://www.mormonwiki.com/Four-fold_Mission_of_the_Church I don't feel like it has put me in an awkward position. I don't believe that anything I have said is out of harmony with President Oak's comments. I don't restrict the meaning of "caring for the poor and needy" to humanitarian aid. I think that would also include Fast Offerings, perpetual education fund, self-reliance programs, quorum service, etc. I also don't believe incidental means options or non-essential.
hope_for_things Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 30 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said: I, on the other hand, believe that charity and welfare is at the very heart of bringing people to Christ. When President Monson announced the fourth mission of the church was to care for the poor and needy, I was very excited because this is a core element of the Christian gospel. But honestly, I've been surprised how many members don't know about this and how little the church seems to promote this idea to its members. I couldn't even find a link on the church's web site that talks to it. Any ideas as to why this hasn't been promoted well? http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/lds/ci_13965607
hope_for_things Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 18 minutes ago, Gray said: A few years back the church added a fourth mission to the previous three main missions of the church. The fourth mission is caring for the poor and needy. https://www.mormonwiki.com/Four-fold_Mission_of_the_Church Ahh.. You beat me to this. Any ideas why this new care for the poor and needy mission seems to have received such little attention. I've ran across many members who don't even know this is an official stance of the church.
Marginal Gains Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 Just now, hope_for_things said: When President Monson announced the fourth mission of the church was to care for the poor and needy, I was very excited because this is a core element of the Christian gospel. But honestly, I've been surprised how many members don't know about this and how little the church seems to promote this idea to its members. I couldn't even find a link on the church's web site that talks to it. Any ideas as to why this hasn't been promoted well? http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/lds/ci_13965607 Because it’s words, not actions. An interesting graph would be to show expenditure by mission. Sort of: Preaching the Gospel - $X Redeeming the Dead - $Y Perfecting the Saints (whatever that means) $Z Helping the poor and needy - $40 million Investments - $N billions A transparent not-for-profit organisation would publish such information. 2
ksfisher Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: When President Monson announced the fourth mission of the church was to care for the poor and needy, I was very excited because this is a core element of the Christian gospel. But honestly, I've been surprised how many members don't know about this and how little the church seems to promote this idea to its members. I couldn't even find a link on the church's web site that talks to it. Any ideas as to why this hasn't been promoted well? http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/lds/ci_13965607 The idea of caring for the poor and needy has been with the church for a long time. Lots of references. https://www.lds.org/search?lang=eng&query=fast+offerings
LoudmouthMormon Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 16 hours ago, Analytics said: I had repeatedly made the point about how the real-world financial outcomes of tax breaks are equivalent to direct cash subsidies, and that transparency is a well-defined and widely held value. Understood, but "equivalent to" is not "the same as". There are differences, some of which I mentioned, like how subsidies involve taking money you have and giving it to someone, and tax breaks do not. In other words, "The real-world biological outcomes of execution by firing squad are equivalent to dying of old age". Just a small matter of timing, agency, bad guys, etc. When you call a tax break a subsidy, you convey a notion about how the government is giving an entity money. It ain't so. You have to believe that government owns all the money in order for it to be a valid statement. And it doesn't. Words mean things.
Gray Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Ahh.. You beat me to this. Any ideas why this new care for the poor and needy mission seems to have received such little attention. I've ran across many members who don't even know this is an official stance of the church. I'm not sure, I remember it very clearly when it was released. I don't know what has been the follow-up on it since then.
Gray Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said: Understood, but "equivalent to" is not "the same as". There are differences, some of which I mentioned, like how subsidies involve taking money you have and giving it to someone, and tax breaks do not. In other words, "The real-world biological outcomes of execution by firing squad are equivalent to dying of old age". Just a small matter of timing, agency, bad guys, etc. When you call a tax break a subsidy, you convey a notion about how the government is giving an entity money. It ain't so. You have to believe that government owns all the money in order for it to be a valid statement. And it doesn't. Words mean things. The government has the right to tax all individuals and organizations in the US. Choosing not to tax some of them really does amount to a subsidy. There is no financial difference for me if the government were to a) reduce my tax rate to zero or b) give me a lump sum of money equal to my taxes owed. Either way, that's a gift to me. Edited June 1, 2018 by Gray 1
HappyJackWagon Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 53 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said: Because you’re wrong! 😉 Here’s what then Elder Oaks said about what you deem “incidental”... Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles warned against giving “excessive attention to definitions and boundaries among these three applications of the Lord's work” or “excluding other essential elements such as caring for the poor.” https://www.lds.org/church/news/new-handbooks-introduced-during-worldwide-training?lang=eng You say “incidental to”, I and (then) Elder Oaks say essential. Oops... I'm saddened that so many on this board are opposed to the idea that the church has a responsibility to be a charitable organization. Good quote by Oaks. Is not caring for the poor and needy part of the 4-fold mission of the church? If so, why are so many people opposed to the notion that the church should care for the poor and needy? There's nothing wrong with an organization keeping reserves for a rainy day to ensure it can continue its good work into the future. That is commendable and responsible. But pretending that the church doesn't have responsibility to care for the poor and needy like the Good Samaritan did, is sad. $32 billion is an awful lot of rainy day funds, on top of all the other assets owned by the church. It seems to be a reasonable discussion to have in counsel as a church. But because there is no mechanism for counsel between the church and its top leaders, there is a defensiveness expressed by some when others show a desire to counsel and discuss. Of course, meaningful discussion and counsel can only be accomplished if information is available, which it is not. I believe those who are fighting against transparency, and worse, those who are fighting against the church's obligation to care for the poor and needy are on the wrong side of history and will one day change their tune and pretend that they were always for transparency and caring for the poor. 2
mfbukowski Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 1 hour ago, rockpond said: ...because a $32 billion stock fund is equivalent to purchasing an ointment to anoint the Savior prior to his death. Strawman alert: Nobody here is agreeing with Judas. Let's try to stay in the realm of reason. How is it different? Can You define it? No. Good luck trying. It is taking care of the poor versus doing the Lord's work.
Recommended Posts