The Widow's Mite Website and Church Finances

[Teancum]

I thought this website might be of interest to some here.  I am just looking into it. My understanding is this group is made up of individuals that are both current and former members and also believing and non believing.  They have financial experience, use what public information is available and extrapolate from there.  They don't seem to have an ax to grind.  Based n the websites analysis the Church is worth about $250 Billion of which $180 billion in non operating assets, or rather, investments.

https://widowsmitereport.wordpress.com/

[Pyreaux]

Cool... It would take $154 Billion just to pave an area the size of Salt Lake City in white-to-blue-grey Italian marble. Salt Lake City is 111 Square Miles, 1 Square Mile = 27,878,400 Square Feet, is 3,094,502,400 Square Feet, $45-55 per sq. ft of Carrara Italian marble would $154,725,120,000. With full buildings, it probably will cost more. I can see it now...

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I thought this website might be of interest to some here.  I am just looking into it. My understanding is this group is made up of individuals that are both current and former members and also believing and non believing.  They have financial experience, use what public information is available and extrapolate from there.  They don't seem to have an ax to grind. 

I think it's pretty clear that they do have an ax to grind.  I'm not sure that's a bad thing, though.  One of its three stated objectives is to "{a}dvocate for greater financial transparency."  That is a reasonable position to take.

Here they critique an article in the Sydney Morning Herald which was critical of the Church.  Overall, though, the tone and content is generally critical of the Church's putatively insufficient "transparency" and expenditures on humanitarian efforts.

MormonStories has a 3-hour YouTube video about this website, which is advertised on the Widow's Mite website.  Dehlin interviews Spencer Anderson, an accounting professor (who discloses his name), and "Radio Free Mormon" (whom we all know, but who does not disclose his name).  As to RFM, he states that he has been "consulting" with the Widow's Mite: "Yes, I'm one of the few people who's had a hand in it who will allow their name to be known, even if it's a fake name."  Also included is "Rebecca Bibliotheca," a former employee of the Lee Library at BYU who has now (apparently) taken an adversarial stance on the Church.  Nate Byrd, the "Black Menace" guy who previously went to BYU, co-produces the podcast.  

Anderson explains that he became involved with the Widow's Mite thing because he was part of a book group run by Rebecca (which she describes as being for "post and nuanced Mormons").  He said that Rebecca "reached out" to him and said that "the Widow's Mite people" were looking for "somebody" to doublecheck their work/analysis.  He said he views the Widow's Mite as the "gold standard" for estimating the Church's worth, income, expenditures, etc.

Dehlin then observes that he "imagine{s} that the people who are part of it {the Widow's Mite} want to remain anonymous for whatever reasons."  That is pretty clear, as the website is entirely opaque as to the participants.  I find such secrecy and anonymity, um, interesting coming from a group calling for "transparency."

Anderson responds:

• that "the founder was a very active member" who is "in the finance industry" and became "concerned" when the "MormonLeaks information came out." 
• He says the group has since grown into "a team" from "various backgrounds" and numbering "about 10 to 12 people." 
• Anderson says he has personally met three of them, and that he thinks they are "sincere."  He says they are "a little on the older side," in "their 40s-50s."  He says "none of them wants any publicity for their efforts." 
• Anderson also says that they are "diverse politically," and that "to them it's not about trying to make an argument about what the Church should do with its money, it's about just trying to figure out what the Church does do with its money." 
• He also says that "the head of the Widow's Mite told me that Radio Free Mormon has made some incredible contributions, many of which nobody knows about because it's stuff he helped push to the table, to the cutting room floor, so it's stuff you don't want in the report."
• The email address for the group it the.widows.mite.report at gmail.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Based on the websites analysis the Church is worth about $250 Billion of which $180 billion in non operating assets, or rather, investments.

https://widowsmitereport.wordpress.com/

Pretty interesting content, to be sure, but also rather ironic in a few ways.

First, the content is pretty much entirely "high level" or "boiled down."  They state their conclusions and opinions (which is entirely fine), but they do not disclose, except in very vague and broad terms, the documentation/evidence they have used to reach their conclusions.  Put another way, they are doing what they are criticizing the Church of doing, which is essentially a "No, we're not publishing the data, but just trust us, what we're saying to you is accurate" approach.

Second, they have the means to create a repository of the documentary evidence they have been using.  Cloud storage is dirt cheap these days.  But it appears they have not done this.  Is it therefore reasonable to accuse them of "hiding" or "concealing" such evidence?  Again, they seem to be doing what they are accusing the Church of doing.

Third, the "Widow's Mite" folks have gone out of their way to maintain their anonymity, and to operate - for lack of a better term - in "secrecy."  They contacted Nathan Anderson through Rebecca-from-the-Book-Group?  Why not just send him an email or give him a call?  And why not ditch the whole cloak-and-dagger thing and just "come out?"  I suspect that they may have reasonable grounds for this lack of transparency.  But then, might the Church also have reasonable grounds?  In the absence of any particular legal or moral/ethical duty to disclose information, is a choice to not disclose reasonably and fairly characterized as "concealing" or "hiding" that information?  As acting out of "fear" (they repeatedly characterize the Church in this way)?  Again, they seem to be doing what they are accusing the Church of doing.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 9, 2023 by smac97

[LoudmouthMormon]

Heh. 

 

 

Quote

The average CEO salary in the United States is $814,300 as of February 27, 2023, but the range typically falls between $615,500 and $1,049,200. Salary ranges can vary widely depending on many important factors, including education, certifications, additional skills, the number of years you have spent in your profession. 

https://www.salary.com/research/salary/alternate/ceo-salary

 

 

Let nobody ever doubt that the most likely, most common sense, most logical explanation for our church leader's motivations, is that they believe what they're saying.   "Follow the money" is always sound advice.  And every single new leak, every new expose, every new source like this, without exception, basically demand that everyone, friend or foe, acknowledge that our leaders ain't in it for the money.  Anyone want to do the math on the size of businesses in the US with CEOs, and see where the church falls in income?

Edited March 9, 2023 by LoudmouthMormon

[Teancum]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think it's pretty clear that they do have an ax to grind.  I'm not sure that's a bad thing, though.  One of its three stated objectives is to "{a}dvocate for greater financial transparency."

Yea I saw that as I drilled more into their presentation and looked at the some of the slide decks.  But they do not seem overtly hostile or antagonistic about it.

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Here they critique an article in the Sydney Morning Herald which was critical of the Church.  Overall, though, the tone and content is generally critical of the Church's putatively insufficient "transparency" and expenditures on humanitarian efforts.

MormonStories has a 3-hour YouTube video about this website, which is advertised on the Widow's Mite website.  Dehlin interviews Spencer Anderson, an accounting professor (who discloses his name), and "Radio Free Mormon" (whom we all know, but who does not disclose his name).  As to RFM, he states that he has been "consulting" with the Widow's Mite: "Yes, I'm one of the few people who's had a hand in it who will allow their name to be known, even if it's a fake name."  Also included is "Rebecca Bibliotheca," a former employee of the Lee Library at BYU who has now (apparently) taken an adversarial stance on the Church.  Nate Byrd, the "Black Menace" guy who previously went to BYU, co-produces the podcast.  

I started listening to the MS podcast and this but am only 25 minutes into it.  The part on the website appears to be the presentation Spencer Anderson used on the podcast.

 

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Anderson explains that he became involved with the Widow's Mite thing because he was part of a book group run by Rebecca (which she describes as being for "post and nuanced Mormons").  He said that Rebecca "reached out" to him and said that "the Widow's Mite people" were looking for "somebody" to doublecheck their work/analysis.  He said he views the Widow's Mite as the "gold standard" for estimating the Church's worth, income, expenditures, etc.

Dehlin then observes that he "imagine{s} that the people who are part of it {the Widow's Mite} want to remain anonymous for whatever reasons."  That is pretty clear, as the website is entirely opaque as to the participants.  I find such secrecy and anonymity, um, interesting coming from a group calling for "transparency."

Yes I found this a bit odd.  I don't think anyone would take what they are doing as hostile. They also do not take donations.

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Anderson responds:

• that "the founder was a very active member" who is "in the finance industry" and became "concerned" when the "MormonLeaks information came out." 
• He says the group has since grown into "a team" from "various backgrounds" and numbering "about 10 to 12 people." 
• Anderson says he has personally met three of them, and that he thinks they are "sincere."  He says they are "a little on the older side," in "their 40s-50s."  He says "none of them wants any publicity for their efforts." 

I would be ancient then I guess.

 

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

• Anderson also says that they are "diverse politically," and that "to them it's not about trying to make an argument about what the Church should do with its money, it's about just trying to figure out what the Church does do with its money." 
• He also says that "the head of the Widow's Mite told me that Radio Free Mormon has made some incredible contributions, many of which nobody knows about because it's stuff he helped push to the table, to the cutting room floor, so it's stuff you don't want in the report."
• The email address for the group it the.widows.mite.report at gmail.

Pretty interesting content, to be sure, but also rather ironic in a few ways.

First, the content is pretty much entirely "high level" or "boiled down." 

I think that is likely good given they likely want to appeal to a broad audience that won't have the patience to drill into detail though it would be nice if they would link to more detail for those who want to dig into such date.

 

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

They state their conclusions and opinions (which is entirely fine), but they do not disclose, except in very vague and broad terms, the documentation/evidence they have used to reach their conclusions.  Put another way, they are doing what they are criticizing the Church of doing, which is essentially a "Trust us, what we're saying to you is accurate" approach.

Based on what you have looked at do you think the information in inaccurate?

 

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Second, they have the means to create a repository of the documentary evidence they have been using.  Cloud storage is dirt cheap these days.  But it appears they have not done this.  Is it therefore reasonable to accuse them of "hiding" or "concealing" such evidence?  Again, they seem to be doing what they are accusing the Church of doing.

As noted I would like to see their resources and date linked to.

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Third, the "Widow's Mite" folks have gone out of their way to maintain their anonymity, and to operate - for lack of a better term - in "secrecy."  They contacted Nathan Anderson through Rebecca-from-the-Book-Group?  Why not just send him an email or give him a call?  And why not ditch the whole cloak-and-dagger thing and just "come out?"  I suspect that they may have reasonable grounds for behaving this way.  But then, might the Church also have reasonable grounds?  In the absence of no particular legal or moral/ethical duty to disclose information, is a choice to not disclosure property characterized as "concealing" or "hiding?"  As acting out of "fear" (they repeatedly characterize the Church in this way)?  Again, they seem to be doing what they are accusing the Church of doing.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well they are not a multi billion $ church with tax exempt status that receives substantial donations from the public and is clearly accumulating quite a large amount of wealth.  Sure I think the anonymity thing for them seems odd. IMO I can see no other reason for the church not to be transparent other than they just don't want anyone to know such things. Many other church's do disclose their finances to their members and the public and they do not have to do that.

[Teancum]

10 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Heh. 

 

 

https://www.salary.com/research/salary/alternate/ceo-salary

 

 

Let nobody ever doubt that the most likely, most common sense, most logical explanation for our church leader's motivations, is that they believe what they're saying.   "Follow the money" is always sound advice.  And every single new leak, every new expose, every new source like this, without exception, basically demand that everyone, friend or foe, acknowledge that our leaders ain't in it for the money.  Anyone want to do the math on the size of businesses in the US with CEOs, and see where the church falls in income?

I think the LDS leaders are way underpaid. 

[Pyreaux]

I think they get it as a Stipend; reimbursed money they spent from their own pocket, and only on travel and food on the road, and not food when at home. If you only get enough money to break even with what you had, money can't be a good motivator. The only way to abuse it is to enjoy presidential suites, overpriced food and first class traveling. Like you're James Bond. 

[Tacenda]

31 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Heh. 

 

 

https://www.salary.com/research/salary/alternate/ceo-salary

 

 

Let nobody ever doubt that the most likely, most common sense, most logical explanation for our church leader's motivations, is that they believe what they're saying.   "Follow the money" is always sound advice.  And every single new leak, every new expose, every new source like this, without exception, basically demand that everyone, friend or foe, acknowledge that our leaders ain't in it for the money.  Anyone want to do the math on the size of businesses in the US with CEOs, and see where the church falls in income?

Yes, but won't the church at least pay for the jobs they now consider volunteer jobs, that use to be paid? The members are stinking the last in their considerations, imo. https://www.ldsliving.com/utah-members-invited-to-volunteer-at-beehive-clothing-facility/s/10407

Edited March 9, 2023 by Tacenda

[rpn]

Quote

I think they get it as a Stipend; reimbursed money they spent from their own pocket, and only on travel and food on the road, and not food when at home. If you only get enough money to break even with what you had, money can't be a good motivator. The only way to abuse it is to enjoy presidential suites, overpriced food and first class traveling. Like you're James Bond. 

All of their first class traveling out of Salt Lake City, would be comped for any other company who spend as much money using their airline around the world out of courtesy (as is done for every other major business spending such amounts of money in any market).  Further the amount of travel they do probably allows them to upgrade to first or best class whenever they want at no additional expense.   Thirdly, these are elderly people who need all  the comfort in their travel that they can get.  No one should begrudge them that (and the Church's travel policy explicitly limits paying for first class to the very upper church management (who are also automatically allowed to take their spouses along on church dime too, which those below them do not have first class purchase options (though they may well get frequent flyer upgrades) and must defend why the church should pay for their spouses to go with --- which seems indeed chintzy to me since there isn't much incentive for a spouse to come along except when something would support their family life or renew them together.).

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Yes, but won't the church at least pay for the jobs they now consider volunteer jobs, that use to be paid? The members are stinking the last in their considerations, imo. https://www.ldsliving.com/utah-members-invited-to-volunteer-at-beehive-clothing-facility/s/10407

If members were being "invited" to provide free labor to the Church's for-profit endeavors, I think your complaint would be more understandable.  But Beehive Clothing makes "the sacred garments and ceremonial clothing for Latter-day Saints and Church distribution centers all over the world," and my understanding is that the Church produces these items at cost or at a loss.  That being the case, I would file such volunteerism under the "consecrated to God" category.  I also think we ought to keep in mind members of the Church who want to keep their temple covenants, but who have meager financial means.  If free labor lowers the production costs for sacred clothing for these our brothers and sisters, that seems like a pretty mild ask.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Heh. 

 

 

https://www.salary.com/research/salary/alternate/ceo-salary

 

 

Let nobody ever doubt that the most likely, most common sense, most logical explanation for our church leader's motivations, is that they believe what they're saying.   "Follow the money" is always sound advice.  And every single new leak, every new expose, every new source like this, without exception, basically demand that everyone, friend or foe, acknowledge that our leaders ain't in it for the money.  Anyone want to do the math on the size of businesses in the US with CEOs, and see where the church falls in income?

The pope's salary: $0

😁

 

[Tacenda]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If members were being "invited" to provide free labor to the Church's for-profit endeavors, I think your complaint would be more understandable.  But Beehive Clothing makes "the sacred garments and ceremonial clothing for Latter-day Saints and Church distribution centers all over the world," and my understanding is that the Church produces these items at cost or at a loss.  That being the case, I would file such volunteerism under the "consecrated to God" category.  I also think we ought to keep in mind members of the Church who want to keep their temple covenants, but who have meager financial means.  If free labor lowers the production costs for sacred clothing for these our brothers and sisters, that seems like a pretty mild ask.

Thanks,

-Smac

Why do missionaries have to pay to volunteer? https://seniormissionary.churchofjesuschrist.org/srsite/ft/search

At one time they had volunteer missionaries working at for profits...maybe they got slack for it. Or maybe they are still out there. https://www.deseret.com/2000/7/10/19517193/tending-the-flock

 

 

Edited March 9, 2023 by Tacenda

[JustAnAustralian]

13 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

The pope's salary: $0

The pope doesn't need to buy his wife flowers if he forgets her birthday.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

I think they get it as a Stipend; reimbursed money they spent from their own pocket, and only on travel and food on the road, and not food when at home. If you only get enough money to break even with what you had, money can't be a good motivator. The only way to abuse it is to enjoy presidential suites, overpriced food and first class traveling. Like you're James Bond. 

No, that is not how it works. That is what they get into their pocket. They may (and probably do) get other perks like not having to pay for flights and hotels and the like. They probably do get those perks as a traveling apostle would make that stipend unlivable pretty quickly.

[LoudmouthMormon]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

The pope's salary: $0

😁

 

Well, these folks seem to like him, so I guess he's ok in my book as well:

[JAHS]

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

I think they get it as a Stipend; reimbursed money they spent from their own pocket, and only on travel and food on the road, and not food when at home. If you only get enough money to break even with what you had, money can't be a good motivator. The only way to abuse it is to enjoy presidential suites, overpriced food and first class traveling. Like you're James Bond. 

 Not sure if this is still happening but at one time Jon Huntsman Sr., let the prophet use a Huntsman corporate jet for traveling. 

[LoudmouthMormon]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

The members are stinking the last in their considerations, imo. https://www.ldsliving.com/utah-members-invited-to-volunteer-at-beehive-clothing-facility/s/10407

I also think Christ should have charged to wash people's feet.  I mean really, why would anyone want to be a member of a organization with a boss who doesn't even value His own labors.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

I think they get it as a Stipend; reimbursed money they spent from their own pocket, and only on travel and food on the road, and not food when at home. If you only get enough money to break even with what you had, money can't be a good motivator. The only way to abuse it is to enjoy presidential suites, overpriced food and first class traveling. Like you're James Bond. 

and real, live girls!

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

First, the content is pretty much entirely "high level" or "boiled down." 

I think that is likely good given they likely want to appeal to a broad audience that won't have the patience to drill into detail though it would be nice if they would link to more detail for those who want to dig into such date.

I agree.  That is rather my point.  The April 2022 General Conference "Church Auditing Department Report" is also "high level" or "boiled down."  It also is intended "to appeal to a broad audience that won't have the patience to drill into detail."

And yes, it might be "nice if they would link to more detail for those who want to dig into such date."  But there's a fair distance between "nice" and "morally imperative."

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

They state their conclusions and opinions (which is entirely fine), but they do not disclose, except in very vague and broad terms, the documentation/evidence they have used to reach their conclusions.  Put another way, they are doing what they are criticizing the Church of doing, which is essentially a "Trust us, what we're saying to you is accurate" approach.

Based on what you have looked at do you think the information in inaccurate?

I am ambivalent, as they have only provided conclusory talking points.  And they are doing so anonymously.  And they are doing so based on a stiched-together patchwork of "evidence" that they have so far failed to produce for public scrutiny and inspection.

Meanwhile, from last year's Church Auditing report:

Quote

Dear Brethren: Directed by revelation, as recorded in section 120 of the Doctrine and Covenants, the Council on the Disposition of the Tithes—composed of the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and the Presiding Bishopric—authorizes the expenditure of Church funds. Church entities disburse funds in accordance with approved budgets, policies, and procedures.

Church Auditing, which consists of credentialed professionals and is independent of all other Church departments and entities, has responsibility to perform audits for the purpose of providing reasonable assurance regarding contributions received, expenditures made, and safeguarding of Church assets.

Based upon audits performed, Church Auditing is of the opinion that, in all material respects, contributions received, expenditures made, and assets of the Church for the year 2021 have been recorded and administered in accordance with Church-approved budgets, accounting practices, and policies. The Church follows the practices taught to its members of living within a budget, avoiding debt, and saving against a time of need.

Respectfully submitted,

Church Auditing Department

Jared B. Larson

Managing Director

I'm reasonably confident that Mr. Larson and his fellow beancounters' report is based on their broad access to the Church's actual finances, as opposed to the guesswork based on the mélange of piecemeal evidences used by the Widow's Mite folks. 

Moreover, I have a number of people of my personal acquaintance who have strongly and repeatedly attested to the overall and overwhelming goodness and sincerity of the leaders of the Church.

I also take note of the substantial absence of any evidence of profligacy, fraud, or other chicanery by the Powers-that-Be.  Nobody is getting wealthy off the Widow's Mite.

Consequently, I have far more reason to give the benefit of the doubt to Mr. Larson, and to those who work with him, and to the Brethren, than I do to a shadowy group of people who are working hard to conceal their identities from public view.

This just does not persuade me.  It just seems like special pleading.

In the absence of no particular legal or moral/ethical duty to disclose information, is the choice by the Widow's Mite folks to not disclose such information properly characterized as "concealing" or "hiding?"

I have no particular qualm with you adjudicating the Church culpable for being insufficiently "transparent."  You are certainly entitled to your opinion on that point.  The Widow's Mite folks likewise have such an entitlement.  But the "transparency for thee and tine, but not for me and mine" schtick just doesn't sit well.

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

with tax exempt status

More special pleading.  And for all we know, "Widow's Mite" could just be a d/b/a or alias of a 501(c)(3).

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

that receives substantial donations from the public

This is, I think, your best rationale.  But I don't think it's sufficient.  And again, this seems like special pleading.  

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

and is clearly accumulating quite a large amount of wealth. 

If we had indicia of profligate spending, waste, incompetence, malicious behavior, etc. in relation to the Church's finances, I think you would have a stronger point.  But we haven't, so you don't.

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Sure I think the anonymity thing for them seems odd.

That's it?  No denunciations?  No demands for "transparency?"

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

IMO I can see no other reason for the church not to be transparent other than they just don't want anyone to know such things.

I suspect there are pretty good reasons.  

Or perhaps not.  Perhaps the Church ought to consider A) being more "transparent," and B) contributing more to philanthropic efforts.  On this latter point, I think the Widow's Mite folks make an excellent point here (slide 46) :

A few thoughts came to mind when I read this:

The first paragraph has been part of my speculation for quite a while now: "Church investments may be growing faster than the Church's ability to to give away a meaningful portion in humanitarian aid."  In other words, the Church cannot, on its own, deploy its resources on the tremendous scales involved when speaking of such vast sums of money.  It must, instead, work with various philanthropic and humanitarian groups.  That seems like a great thing, but those groups need to be vetted.  Heavily vetted.  Problems with such groups are, unfortunately, legion:

• Nonprofit Risk Management Center: A Violation of Trust: Fraud Risk in Nonprofit Organizations
• The Hauser Center: An Investigation of Fraud in Nonprofit Organizations: Occurrences and Deterrents
• FAU College of Business: Non-Profits Fraud
• Philanthropy News Digest: Fraud and Abuse in Nonprofit Organizations: A Guide to Prevention and Detection
• Nonprofit Pro: Why Nonprofits Are More Vulnerable to Fraud Than For-Profit Businesses
• New York Times: Are You Familiar With Wrongdoing Among Nonprofit Groups?
• The Globe Post: No Real Saints: How Nonprofits Take Advantage of Americans
• Procurement Express: Why Corruption in The NGO World Alienates Donors
• Taylor & Francis Online: Malfeasance in the Charitable Sector: Determinants of “Soft” Corruption at Nonprofit Organizations
• FBI: Charity and Disaster Fraud
• Britannica: Charity Fraud
• Wikipedia: Charity Fraud
• U.S. Attorney's Office (Missouri) : Springfield Health Care Charity Pays More Than $8 Million Related to Federal Embezzlement, Bribery Investigation
• CharityWatch: CharityWatch Hall of Shame: The Personalities Behind Charity Scandals
• Univ. of Dayton Law School: Fraud and Corruption in U.S. Nonprofit Entities: A Summary of Press Reports 2008-2011

And many, many more.

The second point is also noteworthy: "To give billions in direct aid, the Church may also need to set up a separate, global organization with secular governance."  They cite the Red Cross as an example of an organization that is large (35,000 employees) and skill and experience in terms of "global personnel infrastructure to ensure compliance with local laws, managing hiring and volunteers ... prevent{ing} graft or illicit uses of funds, administer{ing} measurement and reporting, maintain{ing} financial controls, manag{ing} people safety and provid{ing} transparent reporting."

That sounds great.  And since the Red Cross was founded 160 years ago, that seems like plenty of time for them to get their ducks completely in a row.  And yet:

ProPublica: 10 Disturbing Things ProPublica/NPR Learned Investigating the Red Cross’ Sandy Relief Efforts

Quote

For example, children were sheltered next to sex offenders.

The Red Cross took emergency vehicles away from aid work and used them as props at press events…

Meanwhile, storm victims were going hungry…

…and disabled victims were stuck sleeping in wheelchairs for days…

The Red Cross didn’t have batteries to give out with flashlights…

…but they did supply meals that included pork to a Jewish retirement home.

It wasn’t just Sandy. The Red Cross dispatched 80 emergency response vehicles after Hurricane Isaac — but they were nearly empty.

They sent hundreds of volunteers to a city that wasn’t in Isaac’s path…

NPR: In Search Of The Red Cross' $500 Million In Haiti Relief

Quote

When a devastating earthquake leveled Haiti in 2010, millions of people donated to the American Red Cross. The charity raised almost half a billion dollars. It was one of its most successful fundraising efforts ever.

The American Red Cross vowed to help Haitians rebuild, but after five years the Red Cross' legacy in Haiti is not new roads, or schools, or hundreds of new homes. It's difficult to know where all the money went.

NPR and ProPublica went in search of the nearly $500 million and found a string of poorly managed projects, questionable spending and dubious claims of success, according to a review of hundreds of pages of the charity's internal documents and emails, as well as interviews with a dozen current and former officials.

The Red Cross says it has provided homes to more than 130,000 people, but the number of permanent homes the charity has built is six.

The Red Cross long has been known for providing emergency disaster relief — food, blankets and shelter to people in need. And after the earthquake, it did that work in Haiti, too. But the Red Cross has very little experience in the difficult work of rebuilding in a developing country.

The organization, which in 2010 had a $100 million deficit, out-raised other charities by hundreds of millions of dollars — and kept raising money well after it had enough for its emergency relief. But where exactly did that money go?

Ask a lot of Haitians — even the country's former prime minister — and they will tell you they don't have any idea.

Lots and lots of waste and incompetence here.  By the Red Cross.  This despite being "in the game" for 160 years.

I wonder how newer and less-established and less-credentialed NGOs and such would fare if the Church became sugar daddy to their efforts.  Risks of corruption, waste, incompetence, etc. would be pretty significant.

As it happens, the Church nevertheless donates to the Red Cross.  From March 2022:

Quote

A new gift from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will help the American Red Cross better carry out its mission to prevent and alleviate human suffering.

The Church of Jesus Christ is giving the American Red Cross US$5.1 million to help it meet blood and convalescent plasma needs for hospital patients. These include new machines and the collection and maintenance of blood platelets. The gift will also be a boon for the organization’s sickle cell initiative.

The Church has actually been working with the Red Cross for nearly 100 years.  I suspect, however, that the Church is fairly stringent in confirming that is donated funds are put to good and appropriate use.  I think this would become exponentially more difficult to confirm of the Church were to give the Red Cross exponentially more money.

NPR: In Search Of The Red Cross' $500 Million In Haiti Relief

Quote

When a devastating earthquake leveled Haiti in 2010, millions of people donated to the American Red Cross. The charity raised almost half a billion dollars. It was one of its most successful fundraising efforts ever.

The American Red Cross vowed to help Haitians rebuild, but after five years the Red Cross' legacy in Haiti is not new roads, or schools, or hundreds of new homes. It's difficult to know where all the money went.

NPR and ProPublica went in search of the nearly $500 million and found a string of poorly managed projects, questionable spending and dubious claims of success, according to a review of hundreds of pages of the charity's internal documents and emails, as well as interviews with a dozen current and former officials.

The Red Cross says it has provided homes to more than 130,000 people, but the number of permanent homes the charity has built is six.

The Red Cross long has been known for providing emergency disaster relief — food, blankets and shelter to people in need. And after the earthquake, it did that work in Haiti, too. But the Red Cross has very little experience in the difficult work of rebuilding in a developing country.

The organization, which in 2010 had a $100 million deficit, out-raised other charities by hundreds of millions of dollars — and kept raising money well after it had enough for its emergency relief. But where exactly did that money go?

Ask a lot of Haitians — even the country's former prime minister — and they will tell you they don't have any idea.

Philanthropy News Digest: Red Cross Spent 25 Percent of Haiti Donations Internally, Report Finds

Quote

A new report released by Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-IA) finds that the American Red Cross spent a quarter of the nearly $500 million it raised after the 2010 earthquake in Haiti on internal expenses, a number far larger than the charity previously had disclosed, National Public Radio and ProPublica report.

Following a nearly year-long investigation, the report to the Senate Judiciary and Finance committees found that the charity spent $125 million, or a full 25 percent of the donations it received for earthquake relief and recovery efforts, on fundraising and management, a contingency fund, and "program costs," even though the organization repeatedly has stated that nine out of every ten dollars it receives in donations are spent on programs.
...
Accompanied by nearly three hundred pages of supporting documents, the report also found that top Red Cross officials stonewalled congressional investigators and released incomplete information about the organization's activities in the impoverished country. They have insisted, for example, that $70 million spent on "program expenses" included funds to oversee and evaluate its Haiti projects, yet Grassley's office found that the charity "is unable to provide any financial evidence that oversight activities in fact occurred," despite the fact that, in the past, the organization has committed large sums to grant management. When it awarded $4.3 million to the International Federation of the Red Cross in 2010 for disaster preparedness work, for instance, it spent another $2 million to manage the grant, on top of the hundreds of thousands of dollars it claimed in administrative fees.

Again, this is the charitable group that has been around for 160 years.

New York Times: Facing Disaster After Disaster, the American Red Cross C.E.O. Stays Optimistic

Quote

When Gail McGovern took over the American Red Cross in 2008, the organization was running a deficit and tarnished by scandal. Annual budget shortfalls ran into the hundreds of millions, and her predecessor was ousted after having an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate.

“We were in deep financial trouble,” she said.

That is not to say that the Red Cross is not, overall, a worthwhile endeavor.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

The claim: American Red Cross pays its CEO nearly $652,000 while spending $0.09 of every dollar it collects on “people in need.”

The claim has been floating around on social media and in forwarded emails for years, but it recently started gaining traction again on Facebook.

The viral post, shared in April 2018 by Mike Totman, shows a woman who is identified as Marsha Evans and says she is the president and CEO of the American Red Cross. It goes on to state her alleged salary and explain how the nonprofit spends its money.

This is not true.

Evans left the nonprofit in 2005. Gail McGovern is the Red Cross’ current CEO. She’s led the nonprofit since 2008. Her annual salary in 2018 was $694,000.

So, how does the charity spend its money?

Nonprofit groups in the United States have to publicly report what they earn and where they spend it.

The most recent data for the Red Cross comes from its fiscal year ending June 30, 2019. It reported spending 88% (about $2.7 billion) of its $3 billion budget on “program services.”

Most of that money, about $1.74 billion, went to what the Red Cross labeled "biomedical services." That’s the part of the charity that collects donated blood and sells it to hospitals and health-care providers. About $667 million went to disaster relief services, according to the annual report.
...
“That 0.09 cents statistic is not and has never been accurate,” Eli said. “The American Red Cross is proud that an average of 90 cents of every dollar we spend is invested in delivering care and comfort to those in need.”

Charity Navigator, a watchdog group that grades charities on their financial health, transparency and fundraising costs, estimated the Red Cross spends almost 90% of its “total expenses spent on the programs and services it delivers.”

The Red Cross’ overall ranking on Charity Navigator is three out of four stars and an overall score of 89 out of 100.

My point is this: If an org with the experience and longevity of the Red Cross is still materially screwing up on a regular basis, I could see why the Church would be cautious and circumspect in its donations.

The Guardian: The Red Cross, Haiti and the 'black hole' of accountability for international aid

Quote

Experts said there is virtually no way to monitor how nonprofits operate, nor for governments or disaster victims to hold them accountable for mismanagement

International aid groups largely operate in a “black hole” of accountability, charity watchdogs have said, as fresh allegations emerged this week of the Red Cross’s misrepresentations of its accomplishments after Haiti’s devastating earthquake in 2010.

Officials at nonprofit watchdogs were not surprised by a ProPublica and NPR investigation which found the Red Cross had misrepresented its efforts in Haiti and delivered only a portion of the $488m it raised to Haitians, in spite of a pledge to give “91 cents” of every dollar.

The Red Cross disputes the report, saying the accusations are overblown and unfair characterizations of a program beset by the challenges that all aid groups face in Haiti. But the organization has faced accusations of mismanagement before, including withholding funds after 9/11, delays of emergency supplies after hurricane Katrina and disarrayed and selective relief after hurricane Sandy. Indeed, members of Congress are currently waiting for the results of an audit into the American Red Cross’s disaster relief efforts.

Experts said there are virtually no ways to monitor how nonprofits operate, nor for governments or disaster victims to hold them accountable for deliberate or accidental mismanagement.

“There’s a lot of waste and abuse that’s allowed to go on just because there is no accountability,” said Daniel Borochoff, president of the nonprofit CharityWatch. They exist in “a black hole” of accountability, he said, especially in the realm of international grants.

Hmm.  Should the Church should just shrug and mindlessly throw huge amounts of money at groups like this?  No questions asked?  

Quote

The issues described in the Red Cross report, such as a lack of Haitian staff, an inability to navigate Haitian law, and a lack of expertise were “almost textbook examples” of problems that entangle foreign aid work, Pfutze said.

“They just had accumulated so much money earmarked for Haiti that they essentially started doing development work that they were not prepared for,” Pfutze said.

“You would think that good charities would want accountability,” Borochoff said, “because other groups are doing bad things and it would make them look better, but they often don’t want to tell you what specifically they’re distributing.”

Watchdogs and investigators take particular issue with how aid organizations often report their spending in broad, vague categories such as “housing and shelter” and “medical supplies”. Those categories can variously lump together everything from temporary camps and housing repairs to tissues and snacks.

“We’re not looking for an itemized receipt,” said Sanda Miniutti, a vice-president of another industry watchdog, Charity Navigator. “But there should be a greater level of detail than they have given.

“It really goes beyond the Red Cross,” Borochoff said. “We don’t really know overall who’s doing what, and how resources are best being used, and whether serious needs are being taken care of .”

“They’ll itemize how much was spent on office supplies and then it’ll be $15m in unidentified stuff sent to Africa or the Pacific islands. Can’t you get more specific? Can’t you describe it?”

The Red Cross retains good but qualified ratings from CharityWatch and Charity Navigator: the former ranks the group so high because of its huge and successful blood program; the latter has placed it on a watchlist and links to media reports of mismanagement.

Other aid organizations have also landed on the watchlist, including the Clinton Foundation, another major player in Haiti. The foundation has recently come under fire for a perceived lack of transparency and nature of its donations.

Most often, charities prove less criminal than careless, though many have been found to be both. In the US, regulation and law enforcement usually stays at the state level, though a handful land in the crosshairs of federal law enforcement every year. In May the Federal Trade Commission and all 50 states charged four cancer charities with committing fraud worth more than $187m.

But abroad, the people on the receiving end of foreign aid have little to no recourse when interventions go horribly wrong, as they did during the Haiti cholera outbreak, which was suspected to have been caused by UN teams.

Yeesh.

Is the Church really situated to improve administering relief, where an organization like the Red Cross, with 160 years of experience, seems to have substantial difficulty in getting it right?

I would love to see a logistical framework for the Church's resources to be put to more and good use.  But proper stewardship requires proper oversight, and facilitating oversight creates bureaucracy and expense.  So I think the Widow's Mite folks might need to be a bit more forthcoming in what they think the Church ought to do (which, ironically, is what Prof. Anderson said they aren't trying to do).  Setting up a website with nifty graphics outlining their critique of the Church is all well and good, but it also has a decent amount of "Armchair Quarterbacking" in it.  Do any of these folks have any experience in administering international aid programs on a scale commensurate with the Church's resources?  I suspect . . . not.  And yet they are quite free in offering unsolicited advice that pretty much boils down to "Show Us More!" and "Give Your Money Away!"

If the Widow's Mite folks were truly interested in assisting the Church to improve its humanitarian efforts, I would hope they would take a more constructive stance, as opposed to the barbed, "arm-twisting," "let's see if we can shame the Church into doing what we want it to" approach reflected in their website.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 9, 2023 by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Quote

If members were being "invited" to provide free labor to the Church's for-profit endeavors, I think your complaint would be more understandable.  But Beehive Clothing makes "the sacred garments and ceremonial clothing for Latter-day Saints and Church distribution centers all over the world," and my understanding is that the Church produces these items at cost or at a loss.  That being the case, I would file such volunteerism under the "consecrated to God" category.  I also think we ought to keep in mind members of the Church who want to keep their temple covenants, but who have meager financial means.  If free labor lowers the production costs for sacred clothing for these our brothers and sisters, that seems like a pretty mild ask.

Why do missionaries have to pay to volunteer? https://seniormissionary.churchofjesuschrist.org/srsite/ft/search

To enrich the Brethren, I suppose.   

Or, perhaps, to help the individual feel invested in the work.  It sure did that for me.  I worked hard on my mission in Taiwan because I had saved up to pay for about half of it (my parents paid for the other half), and I would have been ashamed to have wasted that money goofing off rather than consecrating my time and efforts.

Meanwhile, I suspect the Church's missionary program is rather heavily subsidized.

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

At one time they had volunteer missionaries working at for profits...maybe they got slack for it. Or maybe they are still out there. https://www.deseret.com/2000/7/10/19517193/tending-the-flock

Exceptions, I think, that prove the rule.

Besides, did you read the article?  "Elder Huff" and his wife were "volunteering" to . . . "operate a private hunting preserve owned by the LDS Church."  That sounds rather fun, but also rare: "'I don't know of any other missionary doing what I'm doing,' he says, pointing to a row of several hundred cedar trees he planted as a future wind break..."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 9, 2023 by smac97

[pogi]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Is the Church really situated to improve administering relief, where an organization like the Red Cross, with 160 years of experience, seems to have substantial difficulty in getting it right?

It is part of our mission, and it is one of the primary purposes of tithing mentioned in the D&C, so I hope we are committed to continue working to improve administering relief. 

We have man-power that the RED Cross can't touch.  We have funds that the Red Cross cant touch.  We have the doctrinal prerogative and a determined will from the membership.   It would certainly require a significant effort - but what good thing doesn't require effort?  Partners can help in the effort.  The struggle and effort is not an excuse not to engage in a good and doctrinal cause that is directly tied to our four-fold mission of the church.  

Edited March 10, 2023 by pogi

[LoudmouthMormon]

I'm the world's biggest fan of the church welfare system.  1:1 attention with the bishop.  Every single penny spent involves at least 3 people authorizing the expense, and everything is audited every 6 months.  

I've been a finance clerk for 5 years, and there was one time a fraudster family bilked us for too much, for too long.  Bishop was generous to a fault, and ignored several warnings from me and others, in favor of giving them the benefit of the doubt.  The next bishop had them figured out within a month, and they were off our dole and ticked off.   One time, in 5 years.  Not bad.

 

[ttribe]

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Meanwhile, from last year's Church Auditing report:

I'm reasonably confident that Mr. Larson and his fellow beancounters' report is based on their broad access to the Church's actual finances, as opposed to the guesswork based on the mélange of piecemeal evidences used by the Widow's Mite folks.

Should I start referring to you as an "ambulance chaser" or "blood-sucking lawyer?"

[Teancum]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I agree.  That is rather my point.  The April 2022 General Conference "Church Auditing Department Report" is also "high level" or "boiled down."  It also is intended "to appeal to a broad audience that won't have the patience to drill into detail."

A couple paragraph "audit report" is not an audit report.  Not at all.  Even as a believing member I found it worthless. But I am a CPA. All the same it is essentially meaningless.  No look, I am not saying the internal auditors are not doing a good job.  Nor do I think there is intentional  financial malfeasance in the church leadership nor any by the employees who manage church finances. I just believe the church should be accountable and show what it takes in, what it spends and what its assets are. Especially to those who donate.  Always have felt this way.  That is it.

 

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And yes, it might be "nice if they would link to more detail for those who want to dig into such date."  But there's a fair distance between "nice" and "morally imperative."

I have never argued it is morally imperative for the church to publish it financials. I do believe it is the right thing to do however.

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am ambivalent, as they have only provided conclusory talking points.  And they are doing so anonymously.  And they are doing so based on a stiched-together patchwork of "evidence" that they have so far failed to produce for public scrutiny and inspection.

Given your lack of anything remotely close to expecting a church that requires 10% out of its member in order to get the highest ordinances for the highest reward in heaven I really don't put much stock into your seemingly becoming more indignant about the anonymity of the Widow's Mite people.  Perosnally I do not like their anonymity nor lack of support for their high level data.

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Meanwhile, from last years Church Auditing report:

Unlike the Widow's Mite folks, I'm reasonably confident that Mr. Larson and his fellow beancounters's report is based on their broad access to the Church's actual finances, as opposed to the guesswork based on the mélange of piecemeal evidences used by the Widow's Mite folks. 

I am sure they are fine auditors.  But they give you no data other than a perfunctory few paragraphs. You don't have any data to be confident in.  

 

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Moreover, I have a number of people of my personal acquaintance who have strongly and repeatedly attested to the overall and overwhelming goodness and sincerity of the leaders of the Church.

I also take note of the substantial absence of any evidence of profligacy, fraud, or other chicanery by the Powers-that-Be.  Nobody is getting wealthy off the Widow's Mite.

Well it seems that the church itself is a very wealthy organizations.  Among the most wealthy in the world.  And yea nobody is getting wealthy from all that money nor is anyone benefiting from it at all.  Not one whit.

\

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Consequently, I have far more reason to give the benefit of the doubt to Mr. Larson, and to those who work with him, and to the Brethren, than I do to a shadowy group of people who are working hard to conceal their identities from public view.

Shadowy?  Oh please.  Well the two are not mutually exclusive.  You can have confidence in the church auditors.  Nobody is asking you not to. Are the Widow's Mite authors asking you to do so?

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This just does not persuade me.  It just seems like special pleading.

IT is not special pleading at all.  Your argument is flawed.  I promise you when I set up a church and take money donations from the members I will be totally transparent with the finances.

 

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In the absence of no particular legal or moral/ethical duty to disclose information, is the choice by the Widow's Mite folks to not disclose such information properly characterized as "concealing" or "hiding?"

Where you are trying to go with this line of argument is ludicrous. 

 

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have no particular qualm with you adjudicating the Church culpable for being insufficiently "transparent."  You are certainly entitled to your opinion on that point.  The Widow's Mite folks likewise have such an entitlement.  But the "transparency for thee and tine, but not for me and mine" schtick just doesn't sit well.

Not a valid comparison.

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

More special pleading.  And for all we know, "Widow's Mite" could just be a d/b/a or alias of a 501(c)(3).

Could be. But they don't ask for donations.  The church requires it to be considered in good standing. Big difference.

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This is, I think, your best rationale.  But I don't think it's sufficient.  And again, this seems like special pleading.  

Meh...

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If we had indicia of profligate spending, waste, incompetence, malicious behavior, etc. in relation to the Church's finances, I think you would have a stronger point.  But we haven't, so you don't.

Well you really don't know for sure.  You have nothing to review to make that determination now do you?  But that said I agree as noted above.  My issue is not malfeasance.  Its accountability.

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That's it?  No denunciations?  No demands for "transparency?"

If Widow's Mite was asking for donations I would be  more "outrages."  They aren't.  But as noted yes I would like to know who  they are and more details behind their conclusions.

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I suspect there are pretty good reasons.  

Or perhaps not.  Perhaps the Church ought to consider A) being more "transparent," and B) contributing more to philanthropic efforts.  On this latter point, I think the Widow's Mite folks make an excellent point here (slide 46) :

A few thoughts came to mind when I read this:

The first paragraph has been part of my speculation for quite a while now: "Church investments may be growing faster than the Church's ability to to give away a meaningful portion in humanitarian aid."  In other words, the Church cannot, on its own, deploy its resources on the tremendous scales involved when speaking of such vast sums of money.  It must, instead, work with various philanthropic and humanitarian groups.  That seems like a great thing, but those groups need to be vetted.  Heavily vetted.  Problems with such groups are, unfortunately, legion:

Yes on this we agree.  Managing proper deployment of large amounts of funds is very hard. Yet it can be done. The Gates foundation does it. So do many other large private foundations. If the Church is really worth $250 billion and $180 billion is in fairly liquid non operating assets it has the resources to do this, to hire people to do it and so on. Just sitting on all those assets and letting it grow to a trillion is not the most prudent way, nor Christ like way to go.

 

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

• Nonprofit Risk Management Center: A Violation of Trust: Fraud Risk in Nonprofit Organizations
• The Hauser Center: An Investigation of Fraud in Nonprofit Organizations: Occurrences and Deterrents
• FAU College of Business: Non-Profits Fraud
• Philanthropy News Digest: Fraud and Abuse in Nonprofit Organizations: A Guide to Prevention and Detection
• Nonprofit Pro: Why Nonprofits Are More Vulnerable to Fraud Than For-Profit Businesses
• New York Times: Are You Familiar With Wrongdoing Among Nonprofit Groups?
• The Globe Post: No Real Saints: How Nonprofits Take Advantage of Americans
• Procurement Express: Why Corruption in The NGO World Alienates Donors
• Taylor & Francis Online: Malfeasance in the Charitable Sector: Determinants of “Soft” Corruption at Nonprofit Organizations
• FBI: Charity and Disaster Fraud
• Britannica: Charity Fraud
• Wikipedia: Charity Fraud
• U.S. Attorney's Office (Missouri) : Springfield Health Care Charity Pays More Than $8 Million Related to Federal Embezzlement, Bribery Investigation
• CharityWatch: CharityWatch Hall of Shame: The Personalities Behind Charity Scandals
• Univ. of Dayton Law School: Fraud and Corruption in U.S. Nonprofit Entities: A Summary of Press Reports 2008-2011

And many, many more.

So what?  JUst because there are bad actors out there doesn't mean they should take no action.

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The second point is also noteworthy: "To give billions in direct aid, the Church may also need to set up a separate, global organization with secular governance."  They cite the Red Cross as an example of an organization that is large (35,000 employees) and skill and experience in terms of "global personnel infrastructure to ensure compliance with local laws, managing hiring and volunteers ... prevent{ing} graft or illicit uses of funds, administer{ing} measurement and reporting, maintain{ing} financial controls, manag{ing} people safety and provid{ing} transparent reporting."

That sounds great.  And since the Red Cross was founded 160 years ago, that seems like plenty of time for them to get their ducks completely in a row.  And yet:

ProPublica: 10 Disturbing Things ProPublica/NPR Learned Investigating the Red Cross’ Sandy Relief Efforts

NPR: In Search Of The Red Cross' $500 Million In Haiti Relief

Lots and lots of waste and incompetence here.  By the Red Cross.  This despite being "in the game" for 160 years.

Yes it is really hard to do. So what?  Is that a good reason not to attempt to start finding ways to deploy some of these massive assets to help humanity?  Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are more altruistic than the church is. The Gates foundation has tens of billions.  They don't with on their hands and wring them saying it is just to hard and there might be lots of waste and fraud so let's just not do it.  Again the church has the resources.  I don't think they should just start throwing money around but they can start a strategic plan on how to deploy some of their assets. It will take time, and effort, and resources and so on. You know they did quite a nice job setting up EPA to amass a large amount of assets.  Well done. Now do the same with deploying some of the $$.

 

Or do you simply think they should just continue to accumulate wealth.  You know, work towards becoming a trillion $ entity.

 

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I wonder how newer and less-established and less-credentialed NGOs and such would fare if the Church became sugar daddy to their efforts.  Risks of corruption, waste, incompetence, etc. would be pretty significant.

Why does the church need to be anyone's sugar daddy. Good lord, for someone who claims to be a disciple of Christ, you know the one who said if you have done it to the least of these you have done it to me, you sure seem to find all sorts of excuses for your church, the self proclaimed Church of Jesus Christ, to just amass more and  more wealth and just let people suffer.

 

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As it happens, the Church nevertheless donates to the Red Cross.  From March 2022:

The Church has actually been working with the Red Cross for nearly 100 years.  I suspect, however, that the Church is fairly stringent in confirming that is donated funds are put to good and appropriate use.  I think this would become exponentially more difficult to confirm of the Church were to give the Red Cross exponentially more money.

NPR: In Search Of The Red Cross' $500 Million In Haiti Relief

Philanthropy News Digest: Red Cross Spent 25 Percent of Haiti Donations Internally, Report Finds

Again, this is the charitable group that has been around for 160 years.

New York Times: Facing Disaster After Disaster, the American Red Cross C.E.O. Stays Optimistic

That is not to say that the Red Cross is not, overall, a worthwhile endeavor.  See, e.g., here:

My point is this: If an org with the experience and longevity of the Red Cross is still materially screwing up on a regular basis, I could see why the Church would be cautious and circumspect in its donations.

The Guardian: The Red Cross, Haiti and the 'black hole' of accountability for international aid

Hmm.  Should the Church should just shrug and mindlessly throw huge amounts of money at groups like this?  No questions asked?  

Yeesh.

Yea this is really a non sequitur.  

 

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Is the Church really situated to improve administering relief, where an organization like the Red Cross, with 160 years of experience, seems to have substantial difficulty in getting it right?

Not yet. But it can be.

 

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I would love to see a logistical framework for the Church's resources to be put to more and good use. 

Well I am happy to hear that.

 

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

But proper stewardship requires proper oversight, and facilitating oversight creates bureaucracy and expense. 

Of course it does. I am not advocating the church just go out and start throwing billions around to whomever.  But start. Make a plan.

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

So I think the Widow's Mite folks might need to be a bit more forthcoming in what they think the Church ought to do (which, ironically, is what Prof. Anderson said they aren't trying to do).  Setting up a website with nifty graphics outlining their critique of the Church is all well and good, but it also has a decent amount of "Armchair Quarterbacking" in it.  Do any of these folks have any experience in administering international aid programs on a scale commensurate with the Church's resources?  I suspect . . . not.  And yet they are quite free in offering unsolicited advice that pretty much boils down to "Show Us More!" and "Give Your Money Away!"

If the Widow's Mite folks were truly interested in assisting the Church to improve its humanitarian efforts, I would hope they would take a more constructive stance, as opposed to the barbed, "arm-twisting," "let's see if we can shame the Church into doing what we want it to" approach reflected in their website.

Thanks,

-Smac

It seems to me the group is more trying to shed some light on church finances and ye advocate that the church do more to relieve human suffering than they do now.  Do you really think the church can't do more and that doing more would be a good thing if done properly?  And guess what. The church leaders could do away with all this just by being open about their finances.

[Teancum]

49 minutes ago, pogi said:

It is part of our mission, and it is one of the primary purposes of tithing mentioned in the D&C, so I hope we are committed to continuously working to improve administering relief. 

We have man-power that the RED Cross can't touch.  We have funds that the Red Cross cant touch.  We have the doctrinal prerogative and a determined will from the membership.   It would certainly require a significant effort - but what good thing doesn't require effort?  Partners can help in the effort.  The struggle and effort is not an excuse not to engage in a good and doctrinal cause that is directly tied to our four-fold mission of the church.  

Well it seems that a large part of Smacs argument is it is just to hard to deploy large amount of $$ and it can be subject to fraud and other shady behavior.  It is a bad argument. If the Widow's Mite estimates are anywhere near accurate the Church has HUGE resources to plan this out and do it better than anyone else ever has.