Church Faces Possible Tax Issue in Australia (Simon Southerton is involved...).

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

“Australia is unusual among English-speaking countries in that it does not allow tax deductions for tithing or church donations.”

https://www.theage.com.au/national/mormons-inc-church-accused-of-multinational-tax-rort-20220330-p5a98p.html

Yea…I think I trust government sources over a news article and a tithing paying Australian.  My guess is the Age ain’t winning any Walkleys for this article.

Edited April 5, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, ttribe said:

I just checked one that I know was here and that person's name is gone from the records.

Thanks.  I guess I will have to hope google can find something for me…I hate these gaps in recall, make me feel like I am naked in public.

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

disgruntled (but, apparently, 'senior'!) apostates.

Apparently Simon told them not to include the “senior”, but they did anyway in their “commitment” to truth.

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Apparently Simon told them not to include the “senior”, but they did anyway in their “commitment” to truth.

I'd love to see what the promotion pathway is to advance from junior apostate to senior!

[Buckeye]

4 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'd love to see what the promotion pathway is to advance from junior apostate to senior!

You simply outlive 6 apostles ahead of you ….  Voila, Senior!  

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, Buckeye said:

You simply outlive 6 apostles ahead of you ….  Voila, Senior!  

I'm assuming you meant '6 apostates'? But then that raises the question: Who maintains the master list of apostates and their seniority. I'm feeling a letter to the editors for the Age and the SMH coming on ...

 

Edited April 5, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, JustAnAustralian said:

That's a vast simplification of the matter. To get a tax deduction for a donation to a charity, the charity has to be on the deductible gift recipients list. Just being a charity doesn't cut it. 

Donations we pay goes to L.D.S. CHARITABLE TRUST FUND which is on the deductible gift recipients list https://abr.business.gov.au/ABN/View?abn=60964279191

Am I correct in presuming the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not on the deductible gift recipients list?

If the Church itself qualifies as a tax-deductible charity, why not have Australian saints donate directly to it like Saints do elsewhere in the world?

[2BizE]

Is not the intent of the tax law that if you are going to receive tax deductions for donating funds to a church or charity in Australia that those funds be used in Australia?

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 minute ago, 2BizE said:

Is not the intent of the tax law that if you are going to receive tax deductions for donating funds to a church or charity in Australia that those funds be used in Australia?

Nope. Plenty of charities in Australia focus on overseas assistance. World Vision, for example:

Quote

So many complex global issues confront us today – inequality, famine, child exploitation and climate change to name just a few. Did you know you have the power to be part of the solution?  

For more than 50 years, World Vision Australia has teamed up with people like you who believe in creating a better, fairer and more just world.

 

Quote

How we use funds to make change happen

83.8%
Field programs and advocacy work

These funds go to support and carry out programs that benefit children and their communities. This includes our work here in Australia with Indigenous communities and community education that help address global poverty and injustice.

This also includes funds to support the World Vision Partnership’s global operations, including the cost of technical experts who oversee and coordinate disaster relief, development and international advocacy activities. This ensures efficiencies and maximises economies of scale.

 

Quote

Every year, the Australian Tax Office (ATO) provides an incentive for people to donate to charities by making your contributions tax deductible. This means that gifts you make to registered charities like World Vision Australia that have Deductible Gift Recipient status can be claimed as a tax deduction when you submit your tax return at the end of the financial year. For example, the full amount of your donation of $2 or more is tax deductible. We will send you an Annual Tax Statement at the end of the financial year so that you have a record of the donations you have made when preparing your tax return.

 

[JustAnAustralian]

32 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Am I correct in presuming the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not on the deductible gift recipients list?

If the Church itself qualifies as a tax-deductible charity, why not have Australian saints donate directly to it like Saints do elsewhere in the world?

No. The church organisation itself is a charity, but not on the deductible gift recipients list. So it has tax-free status, and people can donate to it, but there are no tax benefits given to people that donate to it for donating.

Edited April 5, 2022 by JustAnAustralian

[Calm]

52 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

No. The church organisation itself is a charity, but not on the deductible gift recipients list. So it has tax-free status, and people can donate to it, but there are no tax benefits given to people that donate to it for donating.

Do you know why this is so?  I am wondering if this is so tithing and other donations can go for multiple subtypes of charity*** as there was a Basic Religion subtype that the LDS Charity was not…and I just saw something about that elsewhere but didn’t take a close look at it.  Gave impression it had limits on it, but didn’t have to do as much paperwork…added:  after finding the info, my guess is the Church needed to be defined as a Church for at least accuracy, but maybe to be afforded protections for religious freedom, but what to function as more than a Basic Religious charity, thus allowing support of welfare and educational efforts as well as other charities.  Found it****

***

Quote

We provided funding to approved GDRs to aid in the relief of poverty and hunger, elimination of disease, alleviation of emergency and calamity situations, improvement of water, sanitation and hygiene, as well as in church related education aimed at advancing religion.

https://www.charitybay.org/charity-list/L.D.S. Charitable Trust Fund

Quote

Under the ACNC Act, 'Basic Religious Charities' are exempt from certain reporting requirements and the ACNC's Governance Standards. To be classified as a Basic Religious Charity, a charity can be registered only with the subtype of advancing religion and could not be registered as any other subtype (for example, it could not also be registered for the subtype of advancing education).

https://www.acnc.gov.au/for-charities/start-charity/you-start-charity/charity-subtypes

https://www.acnc.gov.au/manage-my-charity-type/basic-religious-charities

Checking now to see if donations to BRC are tax deductible…

****

Quote

4. DGR endorsement

If a charity, as a whole, is endorsed as a Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR), it is not a Basic Religious Charity.

However, if the charity is endorsed as a DGR in part for certain funds, institutions or authorities that it operates, it may be a Basic Religious Charity. In this case, the charity can only be a Basic Religious Charity if the total revenue from all of these funds, institutions and authorities is less than $250,000 for the particular reporting period.

https://www.acnc.gov.au/manage-my-charity-type/basic-religious-charities

Edited April 5, 2022 by Calm

[JustAnAustralian]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you know why this is so?

I assume (and this is a very big assumption) that it would be related to asset ownership, running costs (both supplies/maintenance as well as church employees [CES etc]), and what the flow of funding is when there are different donation types. 

In the US for example, missionary fund donations by parents caused some changes in how things were processed, to allow them to be seen as a donation to the church, rather than just sending money to pay for their child. Tax law is very messy, and I'm very glad I don't need to work it out.

[Calm]

Sorry to keep bugging you on this…we need more Australians on the board….this may be a question I can ask my brother now I think of it, since it would have been handled the same when he lived there, so I will use him as back up.

Do you know where the money for welfare given out from fast offerings come from as well as church budget stuff.  Am wondering if the Trust sends over the projected funds to the Church and the Church dispenses it or if it is done so either way.  Would assume that is how the second works, the church maintenance and education side, but welfare…thinking there may be other hoops that have to be jumped through since the Church is registered as a BRC.  Wondering if bishops and maybe RS Presidents function as volunteers for the Trust Fund or LDS Charities Australia in order to do welfare as needed.  There are a little over 300 congregations in Australia and iirc one of the organizations listed 1100 volunteers.

Edited April 5, 2022 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Do you know why this is so?  I am wondering if this is so tithing and other donations can go for multiple subtypes of charity*** as there was a Basic Religion subtype that the LDS Charity was not…and I just saw something about that elsewhere but didn’t take a close look at it.  Gave impression it had limits on it, but didn’t have to do as much paperwork…added:  after finding the info, my guess is the Church needed to be defined as a Church for at least accuracy, but maybe to be afforded protections for religious freedom, but what to function as more than a Basic Religious charity, thus allowing support of welfare and educational efforts as well as other charities.  Found it****

***

https://www.charitybay.org/charity-list/L.D.S. Charitable Trust Fund

https://www.acnc.gov.au/for-charities/start-charity/you-start-charity/charity-subtypes

https://www.acnc.gov.au/manage-my-charity-type/basic-religious-charities

Checking now to see if donations to BRC are tax deductible…

****

https://www.acnc.gov.au/manage-my-charity-type/basic-religious-charities

Religious activity qualifies as a charity in Australia but does not grant DGR status (eligible for tax right off for donors):

Quote

Advancing religion is not a charitable activity that is specifically eligible for DGR endorsement; however, a religious organisation registered under more than one charitable sub-type, may be eligible for DGR endorsement under one of its other charitable sub-types. For example, a religious charity also registered as a public benevolent institution (under the welfare and rights category), may be eligible to obtain the DGR status if its main purpose is to provide for the relief of poverty, sickness, disability, destitution, suffering, misfortune or helplessness.

If DGR status is critical to your organisation’s capacity to attract donors, it may be more important to make religious activity secondary to the primary purpose of the relief of poverty in the design of your organisation’s charitable purposes.

https://birchgrovelegal.com.au/2020/08/12/religious-charities-dgr/
 

See DGR eligible activities here:

https://www.ato.gov.au/Non-profit/Getting-started/In-detail/Types-of-DGRs/DGR-table/

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

If the church is using tithing money from Australia to fund its international giving and then using tithing money from the United States to fund its Austrialian religious activities then yeah I think the Australian government would have a problem with that. If the church has a 70 million dollar tithing surplus in Australia and let’s them donate that to DGR eligible purposes to support its members there, then yeah it would seem to fall under tax avoidance. I’d say it complies with the letter of Australian law but not the spirit of it. (Assuming the church at the same time reduced its global humanitarian efforts by 70 million resulting in a net zero increase in humanitarian spending)

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Religious activity qualifies as a charity in Australia but does not grant DGR status (eligible for tax right off for donors):

https://birchgrovelegal.com.au/2020/08/12/religious-charities-dgr/
 

See DGR eligible activities here:

https://www.ato.gov.au/Non-profit/Getting-started/In-detail/Types-of-DGRs/DGR-table/

 

This contradicts the listing of religion as a charity subtype and the Church’s LDS Charities Australia giving its primary justification for deductible gift charity as promoting religion. (Linked to above, possibly quoted)

[Analytics]

12 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Repeating my post from yesterday, which I took directly from the Australian Tax Office's website:

In this case, I'm much, much more inclined to trust the ATO itself than I am to blindly accept a blanket statement in an Age article based on complaints from disgruntled (but, apparently, 'senior'!) apostates.

I don't see a contradiction between what the newspaper said and what "KylieATO" said. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not registered as a deductible gift recipient. There is a reason for that.

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

This contradicts the listing of religion as a charity subtype and the Church’s LDS Charities Australia giving its primary justification for deductible gift charity as promoting religion. (Linked to above, possibly quoted)

By "LDS Charities Australia" are you referring to "L.D.S. CHARITABLE TRUST FUND."? My understanding it is categorized as a public ancillary fund, which means it is established for for philanthropic purposes (see here and here). 

Anyway, I can't tell if you are conceding that the original source that Smac quoted is in fact right. According to your link:

"Notably however, advancing religion is not a DGR type. So, religious organisations are not generally entitled to DGR status in their own right."

Are religious charities eligible for DGR status? (birchgrovelegal.com.au)

Just because the Church is a charity doesn't mean that donations made to it are tax deductible.

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If the church is using tithing money from Australia to fund its international giving and then using tithing money from the United States to fund its Austrialian religious activities then yeah I think the Australian government would have a problem with that.

Exactly. 

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If the church is using tithing money from Australia to fund its international giving and then using tithing money from the United States to fund its Austrialian religious activities then yeah I think the Australian government would have a problem with that.

Why?

If the purpose of the tax credit is to incentivize philanthropic giving by Australians, why should the Australian government have a problem with some outside entity effectively subsidizing the charitable giving of Australians?

For example, let's assume that Bill Gates were to walk down the streets of Sydney and stop at every church he sees. He walks into each building and tells the congregation, 'Look, for each year that you donate up to 10% of your income to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (which donations will be tax deductible), I will personally guaranty that the lights stay on in this building and that you will continue to have a place to worship.'

I honestly don't see why the Australian government would have a major problem with such an arrangement.

 

[Analytics]

17 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Why?

If the purpose of the tax credit is to incentivize philanthropic giving by Australians, why should the Australian government have a problem with some outside entity effectively subsidizing the charitable giving of Australians?

For example, let's assume that Bill Gates were to walk down the streets of Sydney and stop at every church he sees. He walks into each building and tells the congregation, 'Look, for each year that you donate up to 10% of your income to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (which donations will be tax deductible), I will personally guaranty that the lights stay on in this building and that you will continue to have a place to worship.'

I honestly don't see why the Australian government would have a major problem with such an arrangement.

 

It would be more like Bill Gates saying this...

"For every dollar you give to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, I will give a dollar to your local church instead of giving it to the Foundation. The net effect is your local Church gets just as much money as it otherwise would, my foundation gets as much money as it otherwise would, Australian Mormons get a tax break, and the Australian government gets less tax revenue." 

From another angle, consider the following. Does donating money to LDS Charity Trust Fund really go to fulfill the Trust Fund's DGR-approved philanthropic mission? If so, are such donations really tithing? If Australian Mormons have the choice of paying their tithing to a charity rather than to the Church, why shouldn't Mormons elsewhere have that same choice?

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

It would be more like Bill Gates saying this...

"For every dollar you give to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, I will give a dollar to your local church instead of giving it to the Foundation. The net effect is your local Church gets just as much money as it otherwise would, my foundation gets as much money as it otherwise would, Australian Mormons get a tax break, and the Australian government gets less tax revenue." 

So what? The purpose of offering the tax credit is to incentivize Australians to give to philanthropic organizations - not to maximize philanthropic giving worldwide.

If some outside entity which the Australian government has no control or jurisdiction over decides to subsidize the charitable giving of church going Australians, that's their (the outside organization's) own business.

It strikes me as pretty whiny to complain about said organization for doing such an obviously good thing just because you would rather they do that good thing and something else as well.

 

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

From another angle, consider the following. Does donating money to LDS Charity Trust Fund really go to fulfill the Trust Fund's DGR-approved philanthropic mission?

I have no reason to believe otherwise.

 

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

If so, are such donations really tithing?

If your Bishop considers such donations to be tithing, then yes - such donations are really tithing.

If you will recall, "Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, November 29, 1834, in solemn prayer promised the Lord that they would give one tenth of all that the Lord should give unto them, as an offering to be bestowed upon the poor; they also prayed that their children, and the children’s children after them should obey this law. (D.H.C., 2:174–5.)"

While the church may use tithing funds largely for building construction / maintenance and other programs, providing for the poor is still a valid use of tithing funds.

 

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

If Australian Mormons have the choice of paying their tithing to a charity rather than to the Church, why shouldn't Mormons elsewhere have that same choice?

Mormons (and others) are free to relocate to Australia if they so desire. I hear it's quite nice.

 

[Analytics]

55 minutes ago, Amulek said:

So what? The purpose of offering the tax credit is to incentivize Australians to give to philanthropic organizations - not to maximize philanthropic giving worldwide.

I disagree. The purpose isn't to "to incentivize Australians to give to philanthropic organizations." The purpose is to increase the donations the approved charities receive. The idea is that if approved charities receive more money and the government receives less money, the net tradeoff is good for society--the charity's work constitutes things the government values but doesn't have to do itself. But if giving is done in a way that doesn't result in more good being done, there is no payoff for society.

55 minutes ago, Amulek said:

If some outside entity which the Australian government has no control or jurisdiction over decides to subsidize the charitable giving of church going Australians, that's their (the outside organization's) own business.

It strikes me as pretty whiny to complain about said organization for doing such an obviously good thing just because you would rather they do that good thing and something else as well.

Is dodging taxes through a scheme of charitable giving that doesn't result in charities ending up having more money a good thing? That isn't obvious. At least not to me.

In any case, I'm not complaining about anything. I'm simply explaining why the tax authorities might have a problem with this type of scheme.

55 minutes ago, Amulek said:

If your Bishop considers such donations to be tithing, then yes - such donations are really tithing.

That's just shifting the question from you to the bishop. 

Edited April 5, 2022 by Analytics

[Amulek]

15 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I disagree.

You are more than welcome to do so.

 

15 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The purpose isn't to "to incentivize Australians to give to philanthropic organizations." The purpose is to increase the donations the approved charities receive.

Huh? If the government wanted to increase donations to approved charities, the government could simply outlay funds to those organizations directly. They could offer no tax credits whatsoever and simply direct the desired amount of contributed tax dollars to charities as they see fit.

But that isn't what the Australian government has elected to do. Instead, they use tax credits to incentivize behavior that the government sees as being beneficial. And the behavior that is being incentivized is having Australians give money to philanthropic organizations - not to increase aggregate charitable giving worldwide. You know, because the Australian government doesn't have jurisdiction over the entire world - only over Australians.

 

15 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The idea is that if approved charities receive more money and the government receives less money, the net tradeoff is good for society--the charity's work constitutes things the government values but doesn't have to do itself. But if giving is done in a way that doesn't result in more good being done, there is no payoff for society.

Do you think more good would be done if the Church were to stop subsidizing the charitable donations of Australian Saints?

 

15 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Is dodging taxes through a scheme of charitable giving that doesn't result in charities ending up having more money a good thing? That isn't obvious. At least not to me.

Just to be clear on this point: who, exactly, do you believe is dodging taxes here?

Also, on what are you basing the supposition (implicit in your statement) that charities would end up with more money if the Church were not operating as it currently does in Australia?

 

15 minutes ago, Analytics said:

In any case, I'm not complaining about anything. I'm simply explaining why the tax authorities might have a problem with this type of scheme.

And, as others have said, if the Australian government wants to change it's rules regarding tax credits and charitable giving they are certainly free to do so.

 

15 minutes ago, Analytics said:

That's just shifting the question from you to the bishop. 

Well, I'm not a Bishop, so it's not my really my place to judge.

But, for the sake of argument, I would be happy to engage with any hypothetical you wish to throw at me. Pose the exact question you would like me to answer and I'll give it a go.

 

[Analytics]

15 hours ago, Amulek said:

You are more than welcome to do so.

 

Huh? If the government wanted to increase donations to approved charities, the government could simply outlay funds to those organizations directly. They could offer no tax credits whatsoever and simply direct the desired amount of contributed tax dollars to charities as they see fit.

Sure. The government could do lots of things.

15 hours ago, Amulek said:

But that isn't what the Australian government has elected to do.

That doesn't mean an international organization with sophisticated accountants and attorneys couldn't game the system in a way the lawmakers hadn't anticipated.

15 hours ago, Amulek said:

Do you think more good would be done if the Church were to stop subsidizing the charitable donations of Australian Saints?

I don't know.

15 hours ago, Amulek said:

Just to be clear on this point: who, exactly, do you believe is dodging taxes here?

The accusation is that the Church set up a scheme to make tithing tax deductible in Australia despite the fact that Australia doesn't want tithing to be tax deductible.

15 hours ago, Amulek said:

Also, on what are you basing the supposition (implicit in your statement) that charities would end up with more money if the Church were not operating as it currently does in Australia?

I don't know the specific details of how the Church operates in Australia. I'm simply trying to explain my original point, which was this:

Quote

 

The way I interpret the allegations, before 2010 the Church in Australia donated about $30 thousand a year to charity. Then starting in 2011, the Church is Australia started donating about $70 million a year to charity. That's fishy. What actually happened?

It seems there are two basic ways they could have done this:

A: The global church really increased its charitable giving by $70 million a year, starting in 2011.

B: The global church said, "let's simultaneously do two things:

1. Increase Australia's charitable giving by $70 million a year
2. Decrease the rest of the Church's charitable giving by $70 million year"

If what they did is the second option, I can see why the Australian tax authorities might have a problem with that. 

 

If the Church did option A (increased global charitable giving by $70 million), that would be wonderful. If the Church did option B, I wouldn't be that  surprised if the Australian government decided to revoke LDS Charity Trust Fund's DGR status.

15 hours ago, Amulek said:

But, for the sake of argument, I would be happy to engage with any hypothetical you wish to throw at me. Pose the exact question you would like me to answer and I'll give it a go.

Okay. Let's pretend you are my bishop and my daughter is getting married in a couple of months. I'm in your office applying for a temple recommend so I may attend her wedding. You ask me the tithing question. I answer, "Yes, I pay a full tithing." You raise your eyebrows and ask, "Is that so? According to my records, you haven't paid a dime in tithing in 20 years. Would you care to explain?" I then say, "Well, I believe in the principle of tithing as described in D.H.C., 2:174–5, where tithing is an offering unto the Lord, to be bestowed upon the poor. It seems to me that on the margin, every dollar I give to the Church will be passed on to Ensign Peak Advisors to grow its investment portfolio. I'd rather my donations to the Lord actually be bestowed upon the poor, so I pay my charities directly to UNICEF, the United Way, LDS Charities, and Catholic Charities."

Would you grant me a temple recommend if I said that? I would guess some bishops would, but most would not. In any case, my point is that donating money to LDS Charitable Trust Fund is more like donating money to other DGR-eligible charities than it is to donate to a Church to promote its religious and business objectives. It would be nice if Mormons everywhere could have their tithing obligations settled by donating to charity rather than to the Church.

 

Edited April 6, 2022 by Analytics

[Amulek]

55 minutes ago, Analytics said:

That doesn't mean an international organization with sophisticated accountants and attorneys couldn't game the system in a way the lawmakers hadn't anticipated.

Meh. I suspect the Australian government has bigger things to worry about.

Why should they give a tinker's damn about whether or not some international organization wants to come in and subsidize charitable giving for a portion of their citizenry? 

 

56 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The accusation is that the Church set up a scheme to make tithing tax deductible in Australia despite the fact that Australia doesn't want tithing to be tax deductible.

Well cry me a river. Maybe if the Australian government weren't so hostile to the advancement of religion such "schemes" would not be necessary.

As it is though, I don't see anything wrong with what the Church is doing here - legally or ethically.

 

56 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I don't know the specific details of how the Church operates in Australia. I'm simply trying to explain my original point, which was this:

Quote

The way I interpret the allegations, before 2010 the Church in Australia donated about $30 thousand a year to charity. Then starting in 2011, the Church is Australia started donating about $70 million a year to charity. That's fishy. What actually happened?

It seems there are two basic ways they could have done this:

A: The global church really increased its charitable giving by $70 million a year, starting in 2011.

B: The global church said, "let's simultaneously do two things:

1. Increase Australia's charitable giving by $70 million a year
2. Decrease the rest of the Church's charitable giving by $70 million year"

If the Church did option A (increased global charitable giving by $70 million), that would be wonderful. If the Church did option B, I wouldn't be that  surprised if the Australian government decided to revoke LDS Charity Trust Fund's DGR status.

I would be very much surprised if the Australian government decided to target a specific religion's charitable trust. The optics on that are...not great.

Also, as an aside, I really feel like it needs to be said that I find it fascinating to see the lengths that some people will go to in order to find new and clever ways to express their disgruntlement about the Church not spending enough money. Because that's really what this issue comes down to.

The Australian government doesn't want to incentivize people to donate to organizations whose sole purpose is the advancement of religion. Fine.

They do, however, want to incentivize people to donate to organizations that do a whole host of other things (see, e.g., here), including foreign aid and disaster relief - animal shelters are apparently important enough to make the cut as well. Okay.

So, given those conditions, what's wrong with the Church coming in and telling its members, "Look, here's the deal - in order to receive the same treatment that your fellow Saints throughout the world receive (you know, those who live under governments less hostile to religion) we are going to ask that you simply assign all of your donations to our charitable trust, and let us worry about making sure the lights stay on down under."

Honestly, what's wrong with that? I'll answer my own question here (and in my best UHF voice no less): Nothing! Absolutely nothing!

It is manifestly a good thing. Something that the church (or any other organization) would, under normal circumstances be lauded for doing.

But that is not how the mind of the critic works. No, instead of this being a good thing; it's actually a bad thing - a nefarious scheme perpetrated by a sophisticated international organization designed to do something...bad (I guess).

And why is it bad? The honest answer is because they want the Church to be paying more, plain and simple.

And if that's what the root criticism really is then there's nothing really new to see here.

 

56 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Okay. Let's pretend you are my bishop and my daughter is getting married in a couple of months. I'm in your office applying for a temple recommend so I may attend her wedding. You ask me the tithing question. I answer, "Yes, I pay a full tithing." You raise your eyebrows and ask, "Is that so? According to my records, you haven't paid a dime in tithing in 20 years. Would you care to explain?" I then say, "Well, I believe in the principle of tithing as described in D.H.C., 2:174–5, where tithing is an offering unto the Lord, to be bestowed upon the poor. It seems to me that on the margin, every dollar I give to the Church will be passed on to Ensign Peak Advisors to grow its investment portfolio. I'd rather my donations to the Lord actually be bestowed upon the poor, so I pay my charities directly to UNICEF, the United Way, LDS Charities, and Catholic Charities."

Would you grant me a temple recommend if I said that?

I'm going to preface my response by noting that in this particular hypothetical, as presented, you and I are both kind of jerks. Maybe that tracks though.

I would also add (just for the record) that in real life I would never challenge someone's tithing status. If they said yes, I would accept their answer. A big reason for that is due to my personal conviction that the gospel really is true. If you want to lie your way into the temple, that's on you. I strongly suspect the consequences for doing so will be more serious than missing out your kid's wedding.

Now, to not avoid answering the question, I'll get right to it and say, "Maybe."

If that was your initial answer I feel like we would need to have a longer talk. If I determined that your heart was really in the right place with respect to serving God and not just the whiny, anti-Mormon reactionary drivel that you just spouted off, then yes, I would sign your recommend. And I would probably try to do you a solid and recommend that you keep your trap shut when you go to talk to the Stake Presidency.

 

56 minutes ago, Analytics said:

In any case, my point is that donating money to LDS Charitable Trust Fund is more like donating money to other DGR-eligible charities than it is to donate to a Church to promote its religious and business objectives. It would be nice if Mormons everywhere could have their tithing obligations settled by donating to charity rather than to the Church.

Well, if it's really that important to you, then move to Australia.

Or maybe you could do what you are complaining about the Church not doing and just give equally to the Church and to the secular charity of your choice. Nobody's stopping you from doing that either.