whistleblower on Church finances

[Calm]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

which tithing is, apparently, only used to make a wealthy corporate conglomerate wealthier. 

And yet places like this do not send their tithing in the sense that it goes there and they get back only a smaller percentage of what they contributed to SL.  Instead they  get significant supplementation in order to meet the needs of its people, so more like for every dollar taken in, it gets sent back with 2-4 additional bills...for example, Philippines iirc contributed 15% to their needs while the wealthy conglomerate contributed 85%.  Some countries wouldn’t let tithing leave the country as well.

It doesn’t make the Church wealthier in terms of money to have those Saints pay tithing and thus become eligible for more help in ways not always available to the nontithe payer.  By accepting the tithing of the poor, the Church creates an obligation where they provide substantially more money in many areas of the world than received. 

Thus the Church is not becoming wealthier through the tithes of the poor, but less wealthy if the process is done as directed by SL (not all local authorities follow the rules).  There are of course ways to increase the negative money flow to most of the world, heavy missionary work is one way. 

Edited January 7, 2020 by Calm

[pogi]

40 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.  

That person is in serious trouble without the church!  I think you misunderstand the generosity of the church with members in dire need.  What do you think the bishop would say if this person came to him and said, “Bishop, I really want to pay tithing, but here are my financial circumstances?”  Do you honestly think the Bishop would turn them away as unworthy  non tithe payers because they are unable?  Of course not!  He would say, “thank you for having faith to come in and express your faith and desire to pay tithing, even in your circumstances.  Pay your tithing first, and we will make sure your basic needs of food, clothing, and shelter are met.”  Beyond that, most bishops would strive to improve the condition of the family through employment specialists or networking through the ward and Stake.  The Bishop will do all he can to make their condition temporary to where they no longer need assistance.

I have to say though, even in extreme poverty, the situation you describe is rare and temporary.  I have seen it first hand while serving in rural Philippines where our church was literally an open air bamboo hut with dirt floor and thatch roof.  No roads for miles.  Only hiking trails through jungle connected ward members huts.  I never saw a single member go without for paying tithing.  Rarely did any ever require financial assistance either.  They were healthy and happier than most Americans I know too.

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

That person is in serious trouble without the church!  I think you misunderstand the generosity of the church with members in dire need.  What do you think the bishop would say if this person came to him and said, “Bishop, I really want to pay tithing, but here are my financial circumstances?”  Do you honestly think the Bishop would turn them away as unworthy  non tithe payers because they are unable?  Of course not!  He would say, “thank you for having faith to come in and express your faith and desire to pay tithing, even in your circumstances.  Pay your tithing first, and we will make sure your basic needs of food, clothing, and shelter are met.”  Beyond that, most bishops would strive to improve the condition of the family through employment specialists or networking through the ward and Stake.  The Bishop will do all he can to make their condition temporary to where they no longer need assistance.

I have to say though, even in extreme poverty, the situation you describe is rare and temporary.  I have seen it first hand while serving in rural Philippines where our church was literally an open air bamboo hut with dirt floor and thatch roof.  No roads for miles.  Only hiking trails through jungle connected ward members huts.  I never saw a single member go without for paying tithing.  Rarely did any ever require financial assistance either.  They were healthy and happier than most Americans I know too.

I am curious how this all plays out.  It likely wont' have much impact on many members--as many members, particularly in the US and other parts of the world are well off enough to not feel concern for paying tithing.  I know that's the case with my family and friends.  But as news gets out there more and more that the Church is not doing much but growing the corporation's bottom line with tithing it may start to raise concerns and questions among the faithful, as it should, in my mind.  I don't know anyone's situations.  The poorest societies in the world have Church members and I don't know that any one of their situations are close to the equivalent of the $100/month hypothetical I mentioned.  I described it because for some reason you couldn't imagine it.  It was easy to imagine.  People actually do have it tough, out there.  Billions of people don't have the essentials we have.  And yes, billions of those people are plain happy, no doubt.  In many ways their societies may even provide a healthier environment than ours.  Great...good.  Throwing money at them might not be the best option if all of that were true--it might just make them unhealthy americans.  But taking their money just seems incredibly silly.  

[pogi]

14 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I described it because for some reason you couldn't imagine it.  It was easy to imagine.  

I am confused.  I asked for a scenario where the member wouldn't have means to pay tithing.  You failed to supply one.

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

But as news gets out there more and more that the Church is not doing much but growing the corporation's bottom line with tithing it may start to raise concerns and questions among the faithful, as it should, in my mind.  I

There will likely be many or hopefully most members who, if they pay close enough attention to the issue and just don’t rest after reading the headlines, will realize that given the dropping membership rate in the one area of the world that is currently self supporting (the US, likely Canada as well but that may vary from year to year), with the significantly increasing membership in the countries that require high supplementation from CHQ to meet the needs of the community and its members, that at some point (there will be more going out overseas than coming in incountry.

Ignoring everything that is happening outside of the US is not an appropriate way to analyze the current and future state of a global corporation. 
 

I think the Church does not want to make a big deal about the imbalance of financial needs globally speaking to avoid Saints from feeling members from one country have more value to the Church than another or that some areas are more burden than blessing.  But membership is already over half outside the US.  Unless world economics change, what happens when that drops to 25% inside, 75% other countries...or even lower?

What if the reverse of the claims of the expose occur as they likely will imo at some time unless trends change dramatically; at some point it could be the equivalent of 1 billion in tithing taken in and 7 billion expenses sent out, but with even larger numbers of members and therefore larger needs than now if the rates stay positive and we don’t start getting negative growth.

[stemelbow]

20 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am confused.  I asked for a scenario where the member wouldn't have means to pay tithing.  You failed to supply one.

What do you mean?  You asked for a hypothetical for someone who might get help from the Church and not be able to pay their tithe, as I understood it.  That was my hypothetical.  I don't see how that fails.  If I misunderstood you, please clarify.  

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

What do you mean?  You asked for a hypothetical for someone who might get help from the Church and not be able to pay their tithe, as I understood it.  That was my hypothetical.  I don't see how that fails.  If I misunderstood you, please clarify.  

Your scenario is constructed differently than how a bishop would work with someone. Tithing is paid first when they still have money as pogi showed and then expenses taken out of the remaining money with the lack made up by the Church for the essentials.  Pogi or someone else used your numbers and made it work. 
 

You set up the equation wrong, ignoring proper order of operation as well as associative properties and such (using math as analogy here).

Now if someone desires to pay tithing but refuses to receive aid from the Church even though they deserve it, then there may not be a way to make it work...but that is only by refusing to allow the Church to fulfill its side of the law/covenant of tithing. 

Edited January 7, 2020 by Calm

[ksfisher]

54 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am confused.  I asked for a scenario where the member wouldn't have means to pay tithing.  You failed to supply one.

If a member of the church is entirely depended on support from the church they are considered exempt from paying tithing.

[pogi]

40 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

What do you mean?  You asked for a hypothetical for someone who might get help from the Church and not be able to pay their tithe, as I understood it.  That was my hypothetical.  I don't see how that fails.  If I misunderstood you, please clarify.  

In my response to your hypothetical, I explained how they would not be prohibited from paying tithing.  Maybe you should re-read my response.  I'll provide it for you:

Quote

That person is in serious trouble without the church!  I think you misunderstand the generosity of the church with members in dire need.  What do you think the bishop would say if this person came to him and said, “Bishop, I really want to pay tithing, but here are my financial circumstances?”  Do you honestly think the Bishop would turn them away as unworthy  non tithe payers because they are unable?  Of course not!  He would say, “thank you for having faith to come in and express your faith and desire to pay tithing, even in your circumstances.  Pay your tithing first, and we will make sure your basic needs of food, clothing, and shelter are met.”  Beyond that, most bishops would strive to improve the condition of the family through employment specialists or networking through the ward and Stake.  The Bishop will do all he can to make their condition temporary to where they no longer need assistance.

The Bishop will ask that they pay their $10 tithing and then support them with their needs.

 

[pogi]

12 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

If a member of the church is entirely depended on support from the church they are considered exempt from paying tithing.

"Entirely dependent", as in, they have zero income?  I have never heard of a situation where a person with an income is exempt from tithing.  As I understand it, they pay their tithing on their income, and the Church supports them with their needs.  Do you have any references that further explains what you are saying?

[Amulek]

According to Handbook 1, Section 14.4.1.2 (Who Should Pay Tithing), there are two exceptions for members regarding tithing:

1. Members who are entirely dependent on Church welfare assistance
2. Full-time missionaries. (However, missionaries should pay tithing on personal income beyond the amount they receive for their support.)

I believe Exception 1 is what ksfisher had in mind.

 

[ksfisher]

50 minutes ago, pogi said:

"Entirely dependent", as in, they have zero income?  I have never heard of a situation where a person with an income is exempt from tithing.  As I understand it, they pay their tithing on their income, and the Church supports them with their needs.  Do you have any references that further explains what you are saying?

Instructions given to bishops at tithing settlement.  I've never been aware of anyone who qualified as such, but the provision is there.

Edited January 7, 2020 by ksfisher

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Your scenario is constructed differently than how a bishop would work with someone. Tithing is paid first when they still have money as pogi showed and then expenses taken out of the remaining money with the lack made up by the Church for the essentials.  Pogi or someone else used your numbers and made it work. 
 

You set up the equation wrong, ignoring proper order of operation as well as associative properties and such (using math as analogy here).

Now if someone desires to pay tithing but refuses to receive aid from the Church even though they deserve it, then there may not be a way to make it work...but that is only by refusing to allow the Church to fulfill its side of the law/covenant of tithing. 

When you think about it, there is pride too. Maybe people don't want to take charity, and would rather pay their bills and get along that way, they don't want the church paying their bills so they can pay tithes. That's why the church is wrong to change the doctrine from the beginning, and don't even use the D & C portrayal, IMO. That's where I am still not getting one iota of an answer from many on this board, and I feel like a broken record. When I c/p the scriptures below, pay close attention to the definition below. This is what the scripture possibly meant, to pay when there is an excess above what they have for bills etc.  Current leaders or those in the near past, have changed it to say income. If it had stuck to the below definition, sure the church's wealth would be way down, and the temples modest, and the LDS.org website with a lot less videos and on and on. At the bottom is Steve Harper's quotes, I bolded the significant one. ETA: When reading the article again and again with Steve's comments it appears to be something very different than what I thought. All very confusing for sure. Maybe why the church just went with increase meaning income. 

Definition of interest

an excess above what is due or expected

 

SECTION 119

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord, I require all their ^asurplus property to be put into the hands of the bishop of my church in Zion,

2 For the building of mine ^ahouse, and for the laying of the foundation of Zion and for the priesthood, and for the debts of the Presidency of my Church.

3 And this shall be the beginning of the ^atithing of my people.

4 And after that, those who have thus been ^atithed shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever, for my holy priesthood, saith the Lord.

5 Verily I say unto you, it shall come to pass that all those who gather unto the land of ^aZion shall be tithed of their surplus properties, and shall observe this law, or they shall not be found worthy to abide among you.

6 And I say unto you, if my people observe not this law, to keep it holy, and by this law sanctify the land of Zion unto me, that my statutes and my judgments may be kept thereon, that it may be most holy, behold, verily I say unto you, it shall not be a land of ^aZion unto you.

7 And this shall be an ensample unto all the ^astakes of Zion. Even so. Amen.

But while tithing has root in Mormon scripture, an LDS historian says the way it was calculated in the late 1830s was far different than what is practiced today.

Steven Harper, a former BYU professor who now works at the LDS Church History Department, said tithing was originally based on net worth - not income.

In an article published on LDS.org, Harper said the practice took shape in July 1838 when the faith's founder, Joseph Smith, said he received a revelation about it. This came as the church was looking to raise money to build a new temple, Harper said.

In the revelation as recorded in Mormon scripture, tithing was explained to mean members would give "all their surplus property" to the bishop at the time, Edward Partridge, and thereafter "pay one-tenth of all their interest annually."

Current LDS leaders say interest is typically interpreted as "income." But that's not what it has always meant.

"Bishop Partridge understood 'one tenth of all their interest' annually to mean 10 percent of what Saints would earn in interest if they invested their net worth for a year," Harper wrote. He cited an example from Partridge who was reportedly in the room when Smith received the revelation.

"If a man is worth a $1000, the interest on that would be $60, and one/10. of the interest will be of course $6. thus you see the plan," Partridge wrote in a letter just days after the revelation was received.

According to Harper, six percent was a common interest rate at the time.

"Though the Saints' original understanding of tithing need not (and, in fact, does not) control how tithing functions today, it is fascinating to see the radically different understanding our religious forebears had of tithing," wrote Sam Brunson, associate professor of law at Loyola University Chicago, in an online blog post.

Today, Mormons simply pay ten percent of their income to the church, although there is still some debate among members as to whether to pay on gross or net income, how to pay tithing on investments, and whether tithing applies to monetary gifts.

Paying tithing is considered one of the more important commandments in the church as members cannot enter LDS temples without doing it.

"As with members of many other faiths, Latter-day Saints believe that the payment of tithing shows gratitude to God and brings both spiritual and temporal blessings," according to the church's website.

Follow Daniel Woodruff on Twitter @danielmwoodruff for breaking news, updates and more.

 

Edited January 7, 2020 by Tacenda

[pogi]

22 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Instructions given to bishops at tithing settlement.  I've never been aware of anyone who qualified as such, but the provision is there.

I guess with everything, I guess it is left up to the personal interpretation of the Bishop as to what "entirely" dependent means.  I would personally want to afford them the blessings of paying 10% on any income, regardless of how meager, and then bless them with support in their basic needs and assistance in getting them out of that situation. 

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

I guess with everything, I guess it is left up to the personal interpretation of the Bishop as to what "entirely" dependent means.  I would personally want to afford them the blessings of paying 10% on any income, regardless of how meager, and then bless them with support in their basic needs and assistance in getting them out of that situation. 

The church asks members to go to their families and friends first before coming to the church for help as well.

[ksfisher]

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

I guess with everything, I guess it is left up to the personal interpretation of the Bishop as to what "entirely" dependent means.  I would personally want to afford them the blessings of paying 10% on any income, regardless of how meager, and then bless them with support in their basic needs and assistance in getting them out of that situation. 

I think in this context entirely means that the person has no income whatsoever.  I our modern welfare states I doubt anyone would qualify, but there may be cases in third world countries.  

[JAHS]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I'm just disappointed that the church is building itself year after year at such a rate in order to become wealthier and wealthier. 

No it's building itself up to bring more people to Christ and unfortunately since we do have to do this in a world that requires money, the need for such funds is going to grow as well. 
Perhaps you should apply for the job of managing the money and see if you can do it better than the professionals that the church has hired and the prophets who are inspired by God to do what they do.

Wow! I'm not usually so snarky but I couldn't resist it this time. 😊 

Edited January 7, 2020 by JAHS

[Amulek]

48 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

When you think about it, there is pride too. Maybe people don't want take charity, and would rather pay their bills and get a long that way, they don't want the church paying their bills so they can pay tithes. 

Good point. That's probably why the scriptures always seem to speak so highly of "pride." 

 

Edited January 7, 2020 by Amulek

[Amulek]

44 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

The church asks members to go to their families and friends first before coming to the church for help as well.

Family - not family and friends. And, even then, that is just "generally."

Which, to be completely honest, seems like the way it ought to be. 

Say, for example, you have a child in college who is in between jobs and needs help with rent one month. Who do you think that child should turn to first: the church or their family?

I would think "family" is the obvious, correct answer.

And, as the church says, "[w]hen this is not sufficient or feasible, the Church stands ready to help."

 

Edited January 7, 2020 by Amulek

[california boy]

Maybe it is just me, but 51 pages about this issue seems like a lot of talking about the same points.  It is up to every single person to  choose for themselves whether they WANT to pay tithing.  It is probably better that all this $100 billion has come out as now public knowledge both within the Church and outside the Church.  Each person can now have a more knowledgable gauge as to how they feel about the direction the Church takes.  Each person who is thinking about paying tithing can evaluate for themselves their commitment to pay.  How is this a bad thing for any point of view on this issue.  If you feel like the $100 billion in no way impacts your commitment to pay a full tithing, then carry on.  If you feel like your tithing is something the Church or God doesn't need, then just decide not to contribute.  

So much of this thread is worrying about how the poor feel about paying tithing, when in fact, the only person one needs to be concerned about is how you personally feel about paying tithing.  

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

According to Handbook 1, Section 14.4.1.2 (Who Should Pay Tithing), there are two exceptions for members regarding tithing:

1. Members who are entirely dependent on Church welfare assistance
2. Full-time missionaries. (However, missionaries should pay tithing on personal income beyond the amount they receive for their support.)

I believe Exception 1 is what ksfisher had in mind.

 

What personal income would a full-time missionary typically receive "beyond the amount [he] receives for his support"? I presume that would refer to monetary returns on investments such as stocks or bonds. What other personal income would there be? A full-time missionary would not be engaged in gainful employment, would he?

Edited January 7, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[ksfisher]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What personal income would a full-time missionary typically receive "beyond the amount [he] receives for his support"? I presume that would refer to monetary returns on investments such as stocks or bonds. What other personal income would there be? A full-time missionary would not be engaged in gainful employment, would he?

There could be cases where a missionary would receive money from a trust or annuity or even an estate settlement.  Not something that the 99% of us would need to worry about.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

There could be cases where a missionary would receive money from a trust or annuity or even an estate settlement.  Not something that the 99% of us would need to worry about.

OK. Got it. 

[Amulek]

50 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What personal income would a full-time missionary typically receive "beyond the amount [he] receives for his support"? I presume that would refer to monetary returns on investments such as stocks or bonds. What other personal income would there be? A full-time missionary would not be engaged in gainful employment, would he?

In addition to the examples @ksfisher listed, we had a missionary serving in my mission who had worked as an illustrator for a children's book that ended up being published. He would receive royalties for that work annually and would pay tithing on that income. A recording artist like David Archuleta would probably be similarly situated.

 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

There could be cases where a missionary would receive money from a trust or annuity or even an estate settlement.  Not something that the 99% of us would need to worry about.

I just found out that I am part of the 1%! Woohoo!