whistleblower on Church finances

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I will think about this, but I do know Fair has an uncanny way of finding every way possible to make the church right.

"Right" being defined as "the Church is not the Evil Incarnate so many of its critics so desperately want it to be"?

Quote

Can you give me some help on what they are saying exactly. Is it to protect the members somehow?

They are providing context. 

Context about what was happening in the Church in 1899 (notably, the destitute circumstance of many newly-arrived members).

Context about the likely meaning of "means" as used by Pres. Snow.

Context that neither the author of "Letter to My Wife" (likely the source of your unattributed accusation) nor you provided.

Context that rather mitigates the offensive and hasty and substantively unfair accusation that "{t}he Church lied."

Context about the motives of the Church, which are particularly relevant given the recent discussion we've had about the finances of the Church.  

"The Church" is not in it for the money.  The general authorities, who have access to and control over the Church's money, could enrich themselves wildly.  But they aren't.  They are, instead, living comfortable, but still quite moderate, lives.  They aren't in it for the money, either.

Nor are the members.

Here is another pretty good article on the Church's finances (also by the Trib): "Records reveal how money from Utah and U.S. Mormons props up LDS operations overseas" (https://tinyurl.com/spookef).  Some excerpts:

Among the distinctions the LDS Church is known for are its missionaries in white shirts, its towering temples and saying next to nothing about its money.

 

After all, the Utah-based faith doesn’t have to reveal much about its wealth in the United States and many other locales around the globe.

 

But, in a few countries, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must make public at least some basic information about the revenue it collects, the money it spends and the assets it owns.

...

For his new book, “The Mormon Hierarchy: Wealth & Corporate Power,” noted historian D. Michael Quinn obtained the LDS Church’s financial disclosures for 2010 in six countries that require churches or charities to make such filings: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the Philippines, Tonga and the U.K.

...

The combined assets in those six countries added to $1.8 billion in 2010. They include cash, investments and real estate like a stake center (regional meetinghouse) in view of Australia’s Gold Coast, the Mormon temple south of London and hundreds of chapels across the six countries.

...

The historian, who was excommunicated from the LDS Church in 1993 for his writings about early Mormon polygamy, says he was most struck by the money church leaders in Utah directed overseas. Of the six countries, only Australia did not report a supplement from headquarters in 2010.

 

The church in Canada received $166,728, while the Philippines got $63.8 million — 85 percent of its revenue.

 

Even in a developed country like the United Kingdom — home to almost as many Mormons as in Canada — headquarters sent $1.8 million in 2010, indicating that the church infrastructure exceeds what the locals can support. That and the other subsidies lead Quinn to assume the U.S.-born church is subsidizing its work and wards in Africa and Latin America, too.

 

Based on some general statements Mormon apostles have made through the decades about the church’s income from profit-making corporations and members’ tithing, Quinn says, the source of those subsidies must be offerings from Americans and the businesses the faith owns.

...

Every time a meatpacker buys cattle from a church-owned ranch in, say, Florida, a retailer leases space at downtown Salt Lake City’s City Creek Center, or a Mormon purchases a novel at Deseret Book, Quinn explains, they are helping the nearly 16 million-member faith expand overseas.

 

“My conclusion,” he adds, “is the international church could not exist to the extent that it does with buildings and services were it not for the commercial investments and for-profit businesses of the LDS Church.”

 

A spokesman for the LDS Church declined to comment for this story.

...

“Even not many church members in the U.K. know about these reports,” says Chris Mace, who for about 10 years has monitored Mormon finances from his home in Huddersfield, England.

...

Mace agrees with Quinn’s conclusion. In the U.K., he says, the church is trying to support between 1,000 and 2,000 missionaries and a slew of meetinghouses in one of the most expensive countries in the world.

 

Mace notes the church recently bought a site for a chapel near the Tower of London. The land alone cost about $15 million in today’s U.S. dollars.

 

“If they want a chapel in prime real estate,” Mace says, “they’re going to have to pay for it, and U.K. members aren’t paying enough tithing to pay for that.”

...

While the reports offer far more detail than what the LDS Church shares about its U.S. finances, they still leave some Mormons wanting.

...

Quinn understands the desire for more transparency, but he cautions Mormons against criticizing the LDS Church’s commercial ventures. Apostles long have preached that making profits builds the overall church, Quinn says, and the foreign filings appear to support that.

 

“Theologically,” he says, “the business of Mormonism has always been business.”

I appreciate Quinn's remarks here, though I would quibble a bit about that last bit.  "Mormonism has always been business?"  As a matter of theology?  Sorry, no.  The Church's business interests are a means, not an end unto themselves.  The Church maintain business endeavors to make money, but not for the sake of making money.  The Church uses these funds to support not-yet-self-supporting areas of the Church.  Church buildings, and temples, and missionary work, and so and and so forth.  These are the theological "ends" of Mormonism.  Pointing the children of men toward God.  The Church's existence and efforts, including its business efforts, are designed to facilitate that objective.  And I am glad that it seems to be working well.

 

Is Quinn wrong in his characterization as to the practical effects of "the commercial investments and for-profit businesses of the LDS Church" (those effects including things like massive subsidization of the international membership of the Church)?

 

Per the above article, the Church heavily subsidizes the members in most of the world.  For example, per the above, article, "the Philippines got $63.8 million — 85 percent of its revenue" from outside the Philippines.  That is to say, the tithes of our wonderful Filippino brothers and sisters apparently only cover 15% or so of the Church's expenditures in that country.  The balance - 85%, which was about $64 million in 2010, was paid for by tithes from outside of that country (likely overwhelmingly from members of the Church in the U.S.).  And that amount reflects the Church's subsidization for just one year, in just that country.

 

Surely the General Authorities know this.  Surely they know that, broadly speaking, the poorest people in the world are not going to be net generators of tithing revenue for the Church.  That there are many countries in the world that consume far more of the Church's resources than they contribute.

 

I continue to not understand this sort of hostility toward the Church.  The dogged insistence on giving it no benefit of any doubt, of assuming the worst of it, of viewing it in the worst possible way, and in publicly slandering it on a regular basis.  I am happy to explain what I believe and why, including how I account for controversial and difficult issues pertaining to history, doctrine, finances, whatever.  I would do so with the hope of demonstrating that it is possible for a person to be well-informed about such controversies and difficulties, and still remain an observant and faithful member of the Church.  Not because I am ignorant or uninformed.  Not because I am dishonest, or wink at or ignore dishonesty by the leaders of the Church.  Rather, because I have given these matters a lot of study and research and thought, and because I have found ample grounds on which I can reconcile my spiritual beliefs about the claims of the Church with a fairly clear-eyed, real-world, warts-and-all understanding of the Church as it actually exists and can be observed.

-Smac

Edited January 6, 2020 by smac97

[stemelbow]

Whose to say anyone who is barely getting by has the means?  Are  we saying since Snow said in 1899 "there is no man or woman who can not pay one tenth of what he or she receives" that means the poorest among us in 2020 surely has means to give to the large corporation we know as the Church?  That seems silly to me.  

[pogi]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Whose to say anyone who is barely getting by has the means?  Are  we saying since Snow said in 1899 "there is no man or woman who can not pay one tenth of what he or she receives" that means the poorest among us in 2020 surely has means to give to the large corporation we know as the Church?  That seems silly to me.  

Those people who can't even afford basic needs will be receiving more financial support from the church than they give in tithing.  The church will make sure all of their basic needs are met.  How could anyone not have the means in that scenario?

 

[Tacenda]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Right" being defined as "the Church is not the Evil Incarnate so many of its critics so desperately want it to be"?

They are providing context. 

Context about what was happening in the Church in 1899 (notably, the destitute circumstance of many newly-arrived members).

Context about the likely meaning of "means" as used by Pres. Snow.

Context that neither the author of "Letter to My Wife" (likely the source of your unattributed accusation) nor you provided.

Context that rather mitigates the offensive and hasty and substantively unfair accusation that "{t}he Church lied."

Context about the motives of the Church, which are particularly relevant given the recent discussion we've had about the finances of the Church.  

"The Church" is not in it for the money.  The general authorities, who have access to and control over the Church's money, could enrich themselves wildly.  But they aren't.  They are, instead, living comfortable, but still quite moderate, lives.  They aren't in it for the money, either.

Nor are the members.

Here is another pretty good article on the Church's finances (also by the Trib): "Records reveal how money from Utah and U.S. Mormons props up LDS operations overseas" (https://tinyurl.com/spookef).  Some excerpts:

Among the distinctions the LDS Church is known for are its missionaries in white shirts, its towering temples and saying next to nothing about its money.

 

After all, the Utah-based faith doesn’t have to reveal much about its wealth in the United States and many other locales around the globe.

 

But, in a few countries, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must make public at least some basic information about the revenue it collects, the money it spends and the assets it owns.

...

For his new book, “The Mormon Hierarchy: Wealth & Corporate Power,” noted historian D. Michael Quinn obtained the LDS Church’s financial disclosures for 2010 in six countries that require churches or charities to make such filings: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the Philippines, Tonga and the U.K.

...

The combined assets in those six countries added to $1.8 billion in 2010. They include cash, investments and real estate like a stake center (regional meetinghouse) in view of Australia’s Gold Coast, the Mormon temple south of London and hundreds of chapels across the six countries.

...

The historian, who was excommunicated from the LDS Church in 1993 for his writings about early Mormon polygamy, says he was most struck by the money church leaders in Utah directed overseas. Of the six countries, only Australia did not report a supplement from headquarters in 2010.

 

The church in Canada received $166,728, while the Philippines got $63.8 million — 85 percent of its revenue.

 

Even in a developed country like the United Kingdom — home to almost as many Mormons as in Canada — headquarters sent $1.8 million in 2010, indicating that the church infrastructure exceeds what the locals can support. That and the other subsidies lead Quinn to assume the U.S.-born church is subsidizing its work and wards in Africa and Latin America, too.

 

Based on some general statements Mormon apostles have made through the decades about the church’s income from profit-making corporations and members’ tithing, Quinn says, the source of those subsidies must be offerings from Americans and the businesses the faith owns.

...

Every time a meatpacker buys cattle from a church-owned ranch in, say, Florida, a retailer leases space at downtown Salt Lake City’s City Creek Center, or a Mormon purchases a novel at Deseret Book, Quinn explains, they are helping the nearly 16 million-member faith expand overseas.

 

“My conclusion,” he adds, “is the international church could not exist to the extent that it does with buildings and services were it not for the commercial investments and for-profit businesses of the LDS Church.”

 

A spokesman for the LDS Church declined to comment for this story.

...

“Even not many church members in the U.K. know about these reports,” says Chris Mace, who for about 10 years has monitored Mormon finances from his home in Huddersfield, England.

...

Mace agrees with Quinn’s conclusion. In the U.K., he says, the church is trying to support between 1,000 and 2,000 missionaries and a slew of meetinghouses in one of the most expensive countries in the world.

 

Mace notes the church recently bought a site for a chapel near the Tower of London. The land alone cost about $15 million in today’s U.S. dollars.

 

“If they want a chapel in prime real estate,” Mace says, “they’re going to have to pay for it, and U.K. members aren’t paying enough tithing to pay for that.”

...

While the reports offer far more detail than what the LDS Church shares about its U.S. finances, they still leave some Mormons wanting.

...

Quinn understands the desire for more transparency, but he cautions Mormons against criticizing the LDS Church’s commercial ventures. Apostles long have preached that making profits builds the overall church, Quinn says, and the foreign filings appear to support that.

 

“Theologically,” he says, “the business of Mormonism has always been business.”

I appreciate Quinn's remarks here, though I would quibble a bit about that last bit.  "Mormonism has always been business?"  As a matter of theology?  Sorry, no.  The Church's business interests are a means, not an end unto themselves.  The Church maintain business endeavors to make money, but not for the sake of making money.  The Church uses these funds to support not-yet-self-supporting areas of the Church.  Church buildings, and temples, and missionary work, and so and and so forth.  These are the theological "ends" of Mormonism.  Pointing the children of men toward God.  The Church's existence and efforts, including its business efforts, are designed to facilitate that objective.  And I am glad that it seems to be working well.

 

Is Quinn wrong in his characterization as to the practical effects of "the commercial investments and for-profit businesses of the LDS Church" (those effects including things like massive subsidization of the international membership of the Church)?

 

Per the above article, the Church heavily subsidizes the members in most of the world.  For example, per the above, article, "the Philippines got $63.8 million — 85 percent of its revenue" from outside the Philippines.  That is to say, the tithes of our wonderful Filippino brothers and sisters apparently only cover 15% or so of the Church's expenditures in that country.  The balance - 85%, which was about $64 million in 2010, was paid for by tithes from outside of that country (likely overwhelmingly from members of the Church in the U.S.).  And that amount reflects the Church's subsidization for just one year, in just that country.

 

Surely the General Authorities know this.  Surely they know that, broadly speaking, the poorest people in the world are not going to be net generators of tithing revenue for the Church.  That there are many countries in the world that consume far more of the Church's resources than they contribute.

 

I continue to not understand this sort of hostility toward the Church.  The dogged insistence on giving it no benefit of any doubt, of assuming the worst of it, of viewing it in the worst possible way, and in publicly slandering it on a regular basis.  I am happy to explain what I believe and why, including how I account for controversial and difficult issues pertaining to history, doctrine, finances, whatever.  I would do so with the hope of demonstrating that it is possible for a person to be well-informed about such controversies and difficulties, and still remain an observant and faithful member of the Church.  Not because I am ignorant or uninformed.  Not because I am dishonest, or wink at or ignore dishonesty by the leaders of the Church.  Rather, because I have given these matters a lot of study and research and thought, and because I have found ample grounds on which I can reconcile my spiritual beliefs about the claims of the Church with a fairly clear-eyed, real-world, warts-and-all understanding of the Church as it actually exists and can be observed.

-Smac

Appreciate the time you put in your responses, but feel guilty for you doing this as well. I wish they were shorter for your own good. I'm much older than you, so I am sorry if I sound bossy. 

When I say the church lied, I mean by omitting words it could be considered a lie, IMO. When I look up "means", I get this:

means

/mēnz/

Learn to pronounce

noun

1.

an action or system by which a result is brought about; a method.

"resolving disputes by peaceful means"

2.

money; financial resources.

"a woman of modest but independent means"

 

It sounds to me that the idea of tithing has definitely changed from the earlier teachings on only paying on surplus/means. 

Compare this talk by Talmage and Holland's talk about it and how he omitted some pertinent details. Now it is pay tithing no matter what? Or the poor should have the opportunity to pay even when they don't have it? It looks like Holland omitted quite a bit from Talmage's talk, for instance the very last line that is bolded is where Holland left off the part where Talmage says, "you will pay me nothing". 

https://www.cumorah.com/etexts/lordstenth.txt

"You have need of many things in this world -- food, clothing, and shelter for your family and yourself, the common comforts of life, and the things that shall be conducive to refinement, to development, to righteous enjoyment. You desire material possessions to use for the assistance of others, and thereby gain greater blessings for yourself and yours. Now, you shall have the means of acquiring these things; but remember they are mine, and I require of you the payment of a rental upon that which I give into your hands. However, your life will not be one of uniform increase in substance and possessions; you will have your losses, as well as your gains; you will have your periods of trouble as well as your times of peace. Some years, will be years of plenty unto you, and others will be years of scarcity, And, now, instead of doing as mortal landlords do -- require you to contract with them to pay in advance, whatever your fortunes or your prospects may be -- you shall pay me not in advance, but when you have received; and you shall pay me in accordance with what you receive. If it so be that in one year your income is abundant, then you can afford to pay me a little more; and if it be so that the next year is one of distress and your income is not what it was, then you shall pay me less; and should it be that you are reduced to the utmost penury so that/you have nothing coming in, you will pay me nothing."

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2001/10/like-a-watered-garden?lang=eng

Elder James E. Talmage once described this as a contract between us and the Lord. He imagined the Lord saying: “‘You have need of many things in this world—food, clothing, and shelter for your family …, the common comforts of life. … You shall have the means of acquiring these things; but remember they are mine, and I require of you the payment of a rental upon that which I give into your hands. However, your life will not be one of uniform increase … [so] instead of doing as mortal landlords do—requir[ing] you to … pay in advance, whatever your fortunes or … prospects may be—you shall pay me … [only] when you have received; and you shall pay me in accordance with what you receive. If it so be that in one year your income is abundant, then … [your 10 percent will be a] little more; and if it be so that the next year is one of distress and your income is not what it was, then … [your 10 percent will be] less. … [Whatever your circumstance, the tithe will be fair.]’

 

 

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

Those people who can't even afford basic needs will be receiving more financial support from the church than they give in tithing.  The church will make sure all of their basic needs are met.  How could anyone not have the means in that scenario?

 

So you are certain every person who is scraping by while giving their 10% to the Church is getting more money from the Church than they are giving?  That is quite a stretch.  How are you so in tune with people's finances?

[pogi]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So you are certain every person who is scraping by while giving their 10% to the Church is getting more money from the Church than they are giving?  That is quite a stretch.  How are you so in tune with people's finances?

Allow me to correct that in saying, "many people who can't..."  My point is that if the church makes sure all basic needs are met, how can they not have the means? 

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

Allow me to correct that in saying, "many people who can't..."  My point is that if the church makes sure all basic needs are met, how can they not have the means? 

Why are you assuming the Church makes sure all basic needs are met?  Even if they are, that doesn't mean in any way that they still have means to give to the Church.  

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Appreciate the time you put in your responses, but feel guilty for you doing this as well. I wish they were shorter for your own good. I'm much older than you, so I am sorry if I sound bossy. 

When I say the church lied, I mean by omitting words it could be considered a lie, IMO.

It's a serious charge.  And, given the context, an unwarranted one.  

Quote

It sounds to me that the idea of tithing has definitely changed from the earlier teachings on only paying on surplus/means. 

Which, if true, does not justify a public accusation that the Church "lied."

Quote

Compare this talk by Talmage and Holland's talk about it and how he omitted some pertinent details. Now it is pay tithing no matter what?

I hope you will eventually stop going to the Exmormon section of Reddit to get talking points about the Church.

Is it possible that the counsel given to mostly-agrarian-and-living-in-the-Intermountain-West-in-1923 members of the Church may need to be somewhat different from counsel given to mostly-non-agrarian-and-living-in-cash/credit-based-societies-in-2001 members of the Church?

Quote

Or the poor should have the opportunity to pay even when they don't have it?

I don't know what this means.

Quote

It looks like Holland omitted quite a bit from Talmage's talk,

Again, I hope you get past Reddit as the primary source of information about the Church.

Quote

for instance the very last line that is bolded is where Holland left off the part where Talmage says, "you will pay me nothing". 

https://www.cumorah.com/etexts/lordstenth.txt

"You have need of many things in this world -- food, clothing, and shelter for your family and yourself, the common comforts of life, and the things that shall be conducive to refinement, to development, to righteous enjoyment. You desire material possessions to use for the assistance of others, and thereby gain greater blessings for yourself and yours. Now, you shall have the means of acquiring these things; but remember they are mine, and I require of you the payment of a rental upon that which I give into your hands. However, your life will not be one of uniform increase in substance and possessions; you will have your losses, as well as your gains; you will have your periods of trouble as well as your times of peace. Some years, will be years of plenty unto you, and others will be years of scarcity, And, now, instead of doing as mortal landlords do -- require you to contract with them to pay in advance, whatever your fortunes or your prospects may be -- you shall pay me not in advance, but when you have received; and you shall pay me in accordance with what you receive. If it so be that in one year your income is abundant, then you can afford to pay me a little more; and if it be so that the next year is one of distress and your income is not what it was, then you shall pay me less; and should it be that you are reduced to the utmost penury so that/you have nothing coming in, you will pay me nothing."

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2001/10/like-a-watered-garden?lang=eng

Elder James E. Talmage once described this as a contract between us and the Lord. He imagined the Lord saying: “‘You have need of many things in this world—food, clothing, and shelter for your family …, the common comforts of life. … You shall have the means of acquiring these things; but remember they are mine, and I require of you the payment of a rental upon that which I give into your hands. However, your life will not be one of uniform increase … [so] instead of doing as mortal landlords do—requir[ing] you to … pay in advance, whatever your fortunes or … prospects may be—you shall pay me … [only] when you have received; and you shall pay me in accordance with what you receive. If it so be that in one year your income is abundant, then … [your 10 percent will be a] little more; and if it be so that the next year is one of distress and your income is not what it was, then … [your 10 percent will be] less. … [Whatever your circumstance, the tithe will be fair.]’

This happens in the Church: "Should it be that you are reduced to the utmost penury so that/you have nothing coming in, you will pay me nothing."  People who, as Elder Talmage put it, "are reduced to the utmost penury {as in "extreme poverty; destitution"} so that you have nothing coming in," are excused from paying tithing.  

Had you spent more effort than five minutes perusing Reddit to find a convenient cheap shot against the Church, I think you could have easily found this out for yourself.

Per the above article, the Church heavily subsidizes the members in most of the world.  For example, per the above, article, "the Philippines got $63.8 million — 85 percent of its revenue" from outside the Philippines.  That is to say, the tithes of our wonderful Filippino brothers and sisters apparently only cover 15% or so of the Church's expenditures in that country.  The balance - 85%, which was about $64 million in 2010, was paid for by tithes from outside of that country (likely overwhelmingly from members of the Church in the U.S.).  And that amount reflects the Church's subsidization for just one year, in just that country.

 

Surely the General Authorities know this.  Surely they know that, broadly speaking, the poorest people in the world are not going to be net generators of tithing revenue for the Church.  That there are many countries in the world that consume far more of the Church's resources than they contribute.

 

That being the case, I do not think you can accurately accuse the leaders of the Church, as you apparently want to do.  The poorest people in the world are not being asked to tithe in order to enrich the Church.  It is amply evident that the Church is spending far more money on these brothers and sisters than they are contributing.

 

So if the call to tithe is not accurately attributed to self serving and greedy and morally bankrupt motives (since, again, the GAs are not in it for the money), then what is the motive?  For me, I think the answer lies in the Widow's Mite:

41 ¶ And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.

42 And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.

43 And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:

44 For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.

What do you make of this story?  For me, my interpretation has recently been influenced by experiences shared by my parents, who last year returned from a mission in Zimbabwe.  This is one of the poorest, and worst-managed countries in the world.  Their economy is a shables.  The people there have very, very little.  But the members of the Church there pay their "two mites."  They want to.  It is expression of faith and obedience and love.  Moreover, it is ennobling.  It creates for them a real sense of dignity and purpose.  They believe they are contributing, as best they can, to the Kingdom of God.

 

Don't you think it would be rather condescending for the Church to discourage or prohibit tithes from the poorest people in the world?  To discourage or prohibit them from paying tithes because they are poor?  "Hey, sorry, you're just not good enough to contribute to the Lord's kingdom.  Come back when you have more money"?

 

The "two mites" tithed by the poor will likely not have a huge practical impact on the finances of the Church.  But there are blessings that can accrue to these folks.  Who are we, then, to tell the widow to keep her mites?

-Smac

Edited January 6, 2020 by smac97

[teddyaware]

3 hours ago, Thinking said:

If the economies collapse, then $100 billion will be worth nothing.

Weak. Have you thought of the possibility that if the leaders of the Church are indeed prophets of God, that the Lord will forewarn and inspire them to know the most opportune moments to sell off the invested funds and turn them into the land holdings, farming machinery, manufacturing equipment, building supplies, hardware and every other thing needed to establish and successfully build the Zion of peace and safety. And how much do you want to bet that when that day comes there will be thousands of Lamans and Lemuels who will protest and insist that it can’t be done, but with the Lord’s help and timely intervention it will be done.

 

Edited January 6, 2020 by teddyaware

[pogi]

44 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Why are you assuming the Church makes sure all basic needs are met?  Even if they are, that doesn't mean in any way that they still have means to give to the Church.  

The counsel to all bishops is to be generous to those members who are in need. 

If their basic needs are met by the church after they have paid tithing, how could they not have means?  The only way they wouldn't have means is if they literally made no money that month.  Give me a scenario where they wouldn't have any means to pay tithing, because I can't think of any. 

[Anonymous Mormon]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

The church lied when it took out words of President Lorenzo Snow. People need to know the truth, when it comes to paying their tithing and building that kind of nest egg. The church isn't careful in it's spending, IMO, they want members to be frugal, but are they? But they are frugal when it comes to paying funds for humanitarian means. 

This isn't new to most, and I've brought it up time and time again, but how can this be right? https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-lorenzo-snow/chapter-12-tithing-a-law-for-our-protection-and-advancement?lang=eng

Lorenzo Snow said in the 1899 Conference Address "... I plead with you in the name of the Lord, and I pray that every man, woman and child who has means shall pay one tenth of their income as a tithing..." Conference Report Oct 1899

Now the quote reads: Lorenzo Snow said in the 1899 Conference Address "...I plead with you in the name of the Lord, and I pray that every man, woman and child ... shall pay one tenth of their income as a tithing..." Conference Report Oct 1899

Tacenda - I have seen you pull this same quote from Lorenzo Snow before and I think this has already been hashed out. It entirely depends on whether the word "means" is used as ability or if it's used as income/revenue. 

So we need to figure out which definition he is using. As such, I pose two questions to you:

1) Have you read the full original talk from Lorenzo Snow? Are there other quotes in this talk that imply that tithing is optional based upon ability? What about other talks from Lorenzo snow from the period - have you read them to see if they also say something similar? 

2) This talk was given more than 120 years ago. As a church we believe all that God has revealed, all he does now reveal, and that he will yet reveal. Other prophets have clearly clarified the law of tithing in talks over the last 120 years. How many different talks/prophets can you find since that time that also say tithing is optional based upon ability to pay it?

If your entire argument is based upon the definition of one word from one talk from 120 years ago - especially considering that most talks during that time were a) impromptu and open to erroneous wording and b) hand transcribed and open to errors - and you are trying to use this one word as the basis for a doctrine or idea even though no other talk since that time agrees with it - then you don't really have a foundation for an argument that is worth bringing up in multiple threads.

[Hamba Tuhan]

41 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

Tacenda - I have seen you pull this same quote from Lorenzo Snow before and I think this has already been hashed out.

Yes, multiple times in the past ... and 'hashed out' thoroughly. She's clearly immune to any reasonable response. 

Good luck if you think it's still worth trying; I've given up.

I think the thing that bothers me the most is that she actually accuses the Church of 'lying' when it is these specious criticisms that she repeatedly mines that are demonstrably dishonest and misleading.

Edited January 6, 2020 by Hamba Tuhan

[PacMan]

7 hours ago, pogi said:

Those people who can't even afford basic needs will be receiving more financial support from the church than they give in tithing.  The church will make sure all of their basic needs are met.  How could anyone not have the means in that scenario?

 

This.

The church can help with food and rent.  But it can't help pay your tithing.

The complaint that the poor are asked to pay tithing is wholly spurious, unfounded, and based in ignorance.

Edited January 7, 2020 by PacMan

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Can you give me some help on what they are saying exactly. Is it to protect the members somehow?

Not sure what you mean by this...what do you think might be done to protect members?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

People who, as Elder Talmage put it, "are reduced to the utmost penury {as in "extreme poverty; destitution"} so that you have nothing coming in," are excused from paying tithing.  

I have no income even if not living in penury, so I pay no tithing.  (I know some couples where the wife does not get a salary view the husband's income as a joint salary, I don't though we see it as going into the family pot just like other individual efforts).

It is a basic principle.  10%  

No set absolute minimum amount for membership (such as pay 10% or 100$ a year, whichever is more) required.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

The only way they wouldn't have means is if they literally made no money that month.  

In that case, they still 'have the means' because tithing would be considered to be zero....so they have completely fulfilled their tithing covenant/commitment.

[Hamba Tuhan]

42 minutes ago, Calm said:

In that case, they still 'have the means' because tithing would be considered to be zero....so they have completely fulfilled their tithing covenant/commitment.

You are correct, but pogi is technically correct as well. Elsewhere in his sermon, Lorenzo Snow made it clear that he was using means in its 19th-century definition of 'income'. Last time we discussed this, I included the page numbers for people who wanted to go back and check that out. I suspect no one did.

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

You are correct, but pogi is technically correct as well. Elsewhere in his sermon, Lorenzo Snow made it clear that he was using means in its 19th-century definition of 'income'. Last time we discussed this, I included the page numbers for people who wanted to go back and check that out. I suspect no one did.

Yeah, being lazy here and not rereading it for that context.    I did read it when you posted it, but memory not good enough to incorporate it without refreshment.

Edited January 7, 2020 by Calm

[randy]

7 hours ago, stemelbow said:

So you are certain every person who is scraping by while giving their 10% to the Church is getting more money from the Church than they are giving?  That is quite a stretch.  How are you so in tune with people's finances?

Stem,    I can offer this from my side of the fence.  I got married young, very young.  My first job in 1973 (already married with child) was 3.45 hr as a stockboy at JC Penny. We paid our tithing.  I worked hard, tried my best to put myself into a position to win, but my Church family (all of you) helped me with rent, utilities, food and even two cars (fixer uppers from the EQ) also included....sofa's, washing machines and dryers, bedroom sets and all manner of things to furnish a home (from generosity of members).  This is not to mention numerous anonymous envelopes of cash to help us get by.  These acts of Christlike love continued until I joined the USAF in 1979.   Suffice it to say...I have a wonderful job now, I will be retiring in 2 1/2 yrs with a wonderful pension and 401k.  I happily pay my tithing and offerings.  When I got transferred to TX two yrs ago...we decided to keep our home in Missouri,  and come down here on the "cheap".  We garage saled every item except our fridge.  When we move back, I will get with the Bishop to have him identify a young couple in the Ward that needs a kickstart...and we will give them everything we have here..including a 2nd hand car.  Because my Wife and I remember.  The memories are sweet and continue to be fresh in our hearts.

Edited January 7, 2020 by randy

[JAHS]

A story about LDS Church finances

A story that represents all the help the church quietly gives that is not known by the general public.

 

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, pogi said:

The counsel to all bishops is to be generous to those members who are in need. 

If their basic needs are met by the church after they have paid tithing, how could they not have means?  The only way they wouldn't have means is if they literally made no money that month.  Give me a scenario where they wouldn't have any means to pay tithing, because I can't think of any. 

Serious?  So, let's think.  A person has a family of 4, we'll say.  We'll say that person makes the equivalent of $100/month.  We'll say to put a roof over their head he has to pay $75/month.  Let's say utility bills comes out to 22$/month.  They are left with $3/month for other expenses, like food.  So they go to the bishop and the bishop makes sure they get some rice and beans each month.  How does that provide them $10/month for tithing?  And if they give the added $3/month to tithing then how could they pay for anything that might come up expense-wise?  And yet what do they often get from the teachers of the Church?  Well stories about how the poorest among us sacrificed to pay money each month to the Lord--which amounts to making a wealthy corporate conglomerate wealthier, and not much more.  

[stemelbow]

9 hours ago, randy said:

Stem,    I can offer this from my side of the fence.  I got married young, very young.  My first job in 1973 (already married with child) was 3.45 hr as a stockboy at JC Penny. We paid our tithing.  I worked hard, tried my best to put myself into a position to win, but my Church family (all of you) helped me with rent, utilities, food and even two cars (fixer uppers from the EQ) also included....sofa's, washing machines and dryers, bedroom sets and all manner of things to furnish a home (from generosity of members).  This is not to mention numerous anonymous envelopes of cash to help us get by.  These acts of Christlike love continued until I joined the USAF in 1979.   Suffice it to say...I have a wonderful job now, I will be retiring in 2 1/2 yrs with a wonderful pension and 401k.  I happily pay my tithing and offerings.  When I got transferred to TX two yrs ago...we decided to keep our home in Missouri,  and come down here on the "cheap".  We garage saled every item except our fridge.  When we move back, I will get with the Bishop to have him identify a young couple in the Ward that needs a kickstart...and we will give them everything we have here..including a 2nd hand car.  Because my Wife and I remember.  The memories are sweet and continue to be fresh in our hearts.

Thanks for the story.  I'm not really thinking of these types of situations when I'm discussing this issue.  I'm thinking of places in the world where what you made in 1973 would be considered a very well off person with enough and to spare.  Where going without is a way of life...and yet they are still commanded to pay tithing and often do, which tithing is, apparently, only used to make a wealthy corporate conglomerate wealthier.  It's actually a very sad tale as their is no reprieve in such societies as there was for you.  

[stemelbow]

8 hours ago, JAHS said:

A story about LDS Church finances

A story that represents all the help the church quietly gives that is not known by the general public.

 

Let me settle this confusion.  Fast offerings are great. It's a great idea.  The problem is we don't know how much of our fast offerings goes to the corporate conglomerate and how much actually goes to helping people. IT's sad actually to think the Church collects all the fast offerings and then doesn't use all the fast offerings for helping people in the types of situations you describe.  I have tales from my family that tell some terrible stories on this front.  I won't share though. Not really my place.  I'm just disappointed that the church is building itself year after year at such a rate in order to become wealthier and wealthier.  Perhaps someday it'll be the richest and yet stingiest corporation out there?  Who knows?  

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

So, let's think.  A person has a family of 4, we'll say. 

Mazel tov.

 

Quote

We'll say that person makes the equivalent of $100/month. 

Then they should pay the equivalent of $10/month in tithing, leaving them with $90/month.

 

Quote

We'll say to put a roof over their head he has to pay $75/month.

Now they are down to $15 for the month. 

 

Quote

Let's say utility bills comes out to 22$/month. 

So now they go to their bishop and the church pays the outstanding amount (i.e., $22 - $15 = $7). 

 

Quote

They are left with $3/month for other expenses, like food. 

Only if they never paid their tithing.

 

Quote

So they go to the bishop and the bishop makes sure they get some rice and beans each month.

The bishop will make use of the bishop's storehouse to ensure that their needs are met and that the family doesn't go hungry. And, to be fair, if we're talking about a part of the world where beans and rice are all the bishop can deliver, then we're not talking about a situation where that measly $3 was going to do any better.

 

Quote

How does that provide them $10/month for tithing?

Unless your money is being curtailed before you ever see it, the money is always there until you choose how you wish to spend it. God asks that we sacrifice the firstlings of our flock - not the lastlings.

 

Quote

And if they give the added $3/month to tithing then how could they pay for anything that might come up expense-wise? 

All the more reason to pay a full, rather than partial tithe - that way, should anything else come up, you can go to the bishop and ask for assistance with any legitimate needs you may have.

 

Quote

And yet what do they often get from the teachers of the Church?  Well stories about how the poorest among us sacrificed to pay money each month to the Lord--which amounts to making a wealthy corporate conglomerate wealthier, and not much more.  

Meh. If one doesn't believe that tithing is really a commandment from God, or that this isn't His church, then one is free to go about life without either. 

 

Edited January 7, 2020 by Amulek
spelling

[Calm]

42 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Serious?  So, let's think.  A person has a family of 4, we'll say.  We'll say that person makes the equivalent of $100/month.  We'll say to put a roof over their head he has to pay $75/month.  Let's say utility bills comes out to 22$/month.  They are left with $3/month for other expenses, like food.  So they go to the bishop and the bishop makes sure they get some rice and beans each month.  How does that provide them $10/month for tithing?  And if they give the added $3/month to tithing then how could they pay for anything that might come up expense-wise?  And yet what do they often get from the teachers of the Church?  Well stories about how the poorest among us sacrificed to pay money each month to the Lord--which amounts to making a wealthy corporate conglomerate wealthier, and not much more.  

Stem, have you ever seen up-close as an assistant or recipient how a bishop works with a member who has significant needs?  Your description of how they work through budgeting, helping the member make decisions about current and future needs, choosing how to cover expenses most efficiently does not mirror the way I have heard it described by several who have.