Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

The Widow's Mite Website and Church Finances


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, pogi said:

Relatively speaking, yes.

Compared to the 8-12%  it is earning off interest annually.  Yes, 1 billion is an almost an invisible fraction of its accumulated and exponentially growing wealth.   As our wealth grows beyond 100 billion, which we probably already have, that 1 billion will become an ever shrinking fraction of one percent. 

We only have 4 stated missions in the church.  A fraction of one percent is an almost invisible fraction to use towards fulfilling 1 of only 4 stated missions. 

I give 10% to the church who doesn't need my money (according to them).  Surely the church can give more than a fraction of a percent to the poor (who does need my money).  Some of that 1 billion comes from fast-offerings, which is above and beyond the 10% I pay in tithing.

 

For some reason you reminded me of a friend who recently shared this experience: 

"Once upon a time not long ago a good friend’s mother passed away. She had been a faithful believing, tithe paying member her entire life. At her funeral the bishop pulled out her last tithing envelope that she had asked her husband to turn in. This was her final testimony on tithing. The ward then asked the family to pay for the ham for her funeral luncheon because it was not in their budget."

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

What is the "$1 billion a year" referring to? Cash donated by the church? Labor hours donated by members? Some combination of that and something else? Not questioning it, just curious what that figure refers to.

https://www.thechurchnews.com/2022/5/13/23218113/church-2021-annual-report-includes-more-than-3900-humanitarian-projects-in-188-countries
 

Quote

From helping refugees to clean-water projects, self-reliance courses and disaster relief, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members took part in 3,909 humanitarian projects in 188 countries in 2021, an increase from the previous year.

This outreach included $906 million from the Church and 6.8 million hours of volunteer work by everyday Latter-day Saints, according to the 2021 annual report of caring released on ChurchofJesusChrist.org.

 

Link to comment

Apparently 2022 increased donations, though not seeing a total yet (maybe by May), but likely over a billion that year I am guessing. 

The largest ever donation of $32 million was given out last Sept. 

https://www.thechurchnews.com/global/2022/9/28/23365257/humanitarian-donations-giving-aid-emergency-response-welfare-service-justserve

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
41 minutes ago, pogi said:

1) "There is more required than deep pockets."  To which I say, of course.  I never suggested otherwise.  That is not an excuse to not work towards expanding our efforts.  

I have never suggested that the Church "not work."

41 minutes ago, pogi said:

2) "The church is not supposed to play that role".  To which I say, yes...it is. 

First, whom are you quoting here?  I did not type the statement you have in quotes.

Second, what I did say was this:

Quote
Quote

I respectfully submit that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has an important role to play, but that role is not primarily about it, as an institution, financially bankrolling efforts in ways similar to the Gates Foundation, or even the Red Cross.  I think such matters are necessarily outside the province of the institutional Church.  Should its members be involved in governmental and philanthropic efforts to improve the condition of the world and its inhabitants?  Certainly.  As individuals.  Should the institutional Church assist in such efforts?  Yes, but not as a Power Player (like Bill Gates), and not as an organization that is straying from its intended and appropriate mandates (as it would by trying to be like the Red Cross).  

I think the Church is not supposed to play the role you seem to want it to play

Third, you are stating that "yes...it is {the primary role of the Church, as an institution, financially bankrolling efforts in ways similar to the Gates Foundation, or even the Red Cross}."

Fourth, I think you are incorrect on this.  Again, from Elder Bednar (an my commentary) :

Quote
Quote

Elder Bednar noted that while he highlighted many aspects of the Church’s humanitarian outreach, the Church is primarily not a humanitarian organization.

“We are the Church of Jesus Christ, reestablished or restored upon the earth in the latter days in preparation for the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. We do all of these things because, as His disciples, we love Him and want to follow His example in our lives.”

And there it is: "{T}he Church is primarily not a humanitarian organization."  I find it odd that this is a controversial statement, so much so that the Widow's Mite folks featured it as a decontextualized quote on their website.

Our primary purpose and objective is not to solve world hunger, or climate change, or champion animal rights, or provide free healthcare or education, or oppose Russia's aggressions against Ukraine, or any other goal, however laudable they may be.  We are, fundamentally and first and foremost, "the Church of Jesus Christ, reestablished or restored upon the earth in the latter days in preparation for the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ."  Everything else is derivative of that.

I greatly appreciate the efforts of the Church to help both its members and others.  I am likewise happy to hear that its "humanitarian expenditures have doubled in the past five years," and that "we believe they are going to increase fast."  And as I have no expectation that the Church is perfect, I fully expect it to continue to improve and grow.

I don't think you are addressing this, other than to rotely disagree with it.

41 minutes ago, pogi said:

We only have a 4 fold mission.  It is one of them.  It is also one of the primary purposes of tithing stated in the D&C. 

"It" being the Church having a primary function, as an institution, of financially bankrolling efforts in ways similar to the Gates Foundation, or even the Red Cross?

No, that is not "one of" the Church's missions.  "Caring for the poor and needy" is the mission.  You seem to equate that with the Church having a primary role, as an institution, of financially bankrolling efforts in ways similar to the Gates Foundation, or even the Red Cross.  I don't.  Again, from this 2020 article:

Quote

Bishop Caussé said caring for those in need across the globe is at the heart of the mission of the Church. It is not “an appendage to the mission,” but instead is intermingled in everything the Church does. “We are all sons and daughters of God upon the earth, and we are committed to take care of one another,” he said. “And this is one of the ways that, as disciples of Lord Jesus Christ, we care for those in need.”

I really like this.

Quote

In addition to responding to disasters across the globe, Church humanitarian funds have been used to provide food programs, vision care, maternal and newborn care, clean water and sanitation, immunizations, wheelchairs, and help for refugees.

However, reaching out and helping those in need is “a very complex endeavor,” he said.

The Church can’t just send out cash and checks to people, he said. “It has to be done in an organized way, and with follow up, with training, a lot of expertise and good partners. Otherwise, you just don’t get any results.”

This is, I think, where you and I differ. 

You are apparently not recognizing that the Church is already doing what you say you want it to do.

Quote

Bishop Davies said the Church is careful to select humanitarian projects and partners that will make the best use of the Church’s funds. “We are very careful with the widow’s mite,” referring to the biblical parable by the Savior.

“We recognize that this comes from the faith of Church members and we want to make certain that they have the trust and confidence that their donations are being managed in a careful and thoughtful and very safe way for them and for the Church,” said Bishop Davies.

You are apparently not recognizing that careful stewardship of "the widow's mite" is an important consideration.

Either that, or you are not accounting for the substantial "rot," in terms of waste, corruption, graft, mismanagement, etc., that exists across broad swaths of the "international humanitarian" arena.

Either that, or you are substantially underestimating the challenges in properly vetting "humanitarian projects and partners."  

Or all three of these.

41 minutes ago, pogi said:

You suggest that this burden should be placed on the individual members and not the church.

Again, you are not accurately stating my position.  Here it is again:

Quote

I respectfully submit that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has an important role to play, but that role is not primarily about it, as an institution, financially bankrolling efforts in ways similar to the Gates Foundation, or even the Red Cross.  I think such matters are necessarily outside the province of the institutional Church.  Should its members be involved in governmental and philanthropic efforts to improve the condition of the world and its inhabitants?  Certainly.  As individuals.  Should the institutional Church assist in such efforts?  Yes, but not as a Power Player (like Bill Gates), and not as an organization that is straying from its intended and appropriate mandates (as it would by trying to be like the Red Cross).  

There is nothing new in this.  The members of the Church are supposed to "be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness."

There are certainly ways in which the Church and and should (and does) help with humanitarian efforts, but again, not as a Power Player, and not insofar as to stray from its intended mandates.

The Church has the capacity to, as an institution, direct efforts to "perfect the Saints" (priesthood leadership, administering ordinances, weekly services, General Conference, seminaries & institutes, youth programs, and on and on an don), and to "proclaim the Gospel" (the missionary program, senior missionaries, "every member a missionary," and so on), and to "redeem the dead" (family history work, temple work, etc.).  The Church moves heaven and earth on this, and I am happy about that.

Regarding the fourth mission, to "care for the poor and needy," the Church has, as of 2020, doubled its humanitarian spending over the past five years, and now spends $1 billion/year on humanitarian aid (which expenditures the Church anticipates "are going to increase fast"), and spends $1.5 billion in subsidizing the education of 90,000 students, and operates 27 wheat storage facilities and more than 100 bishops’ storehouses, and funds nine refugee resettlement agencies in the United States, and manages many worthwhile programs ("food programs, vision care, maternal and newborn care, clean water and sanitation, immunizations, wheelchairs, and help for refugees"), and more.

Can the Church do more?  Sure.  But I think folks like you have not thought things through, and are jumping to unwarranted conclusions.  Again from the 2020 article:

Quote

In addition to responding to disasters across the globe, Church humanitarian funds have been used to provide food programs, vision care, maternal and newborn care, clean water and sanitation, immunizations, wheelchairs, and help for refugees.

However, reaching out and helping those in need is “a very complex endeavor,” he said.

The Church can’t just send out cash and checks to people, he said. “It has to be done in an organized way, and with follow up, with training, a lot of expertise and good partners. Otherwise, you just don’t get any results.”

Bishop Davies said the Church is careful to select humanitarian projects and partners that will make the best use of the Church’s funds. “We are very careful with the widow’s mite,” referring to the biblical parable by the Savior.

“We recognize that this comes from the faith of Church members and we want to make certain that they have the trust and confidence that their donations are being managed in a careful and thoughtful and very safe way for them and for the Church,” said Bishop Davies.

Leaders often ask themselves “what else can we do, where else can we go, who else can we work with,” said Bishop Waddell.  

Every time the Church reaches out, the objective is to bless both the giver and the receiver, added Bishop Caussé. So in addition to selecting good humanitarian projects, Church leaders are always mindful of providing service opportunities for Church members. “It’s not just a matter of money,” he said. It’s also done as members “devote time and resources and efforts to help others.”

I just don't see you meaningfully addressing this.

Again, what is it that you think the Church is not doing that it is not presently doing, and/or has not attempted to do?

41 minutes ago, pogi said:

Ok, great.  Then help fund our efforts. 

What on earth are you talking about?  Isn't that precisely what the Presiding Bishopric are trying to do?

41 minutes ago, pogi said:

Don't expect those of us who barely get by to pay beyond our tithing to fulfill the stated mission and purpose of tithing as it sits on billions and does nothing with it.

Oi.

41 minutes ago, pogi said:

If tithing is to be used for the purpose of humanitarian work as mentioned in the D&C, and we are supposed to pay our tithing to the church, then it is absolutely their role and responsibility to use tithing for that purpose.   

Nobody has suggested otherwise.

41 minutes ago, pogi said:

I would be happy to take on more of that role if they would allow me pay my tithing to humanitarian efforts instead of directly to the church.

Donations to other efforts are, by definition, not "tithes."

And nobody is stopping you from donating what time, money and effort you can to humanitarian efforts.

41 minutes ago, pogi said:

3) We will be criticized if we expand our humanitarian efforts. 

Again, you are not accurately stating my position.  Here is what I said:

Quote

If the Church were to alter course and start investing tens of billions of dollars in ways similar to Bill Gates, it would be susceptible to many of the same criticisms Bill Gates has received.  And many of those criticisms would be justified.  Mr. Gates is not an elected official.  He is making huge decisions for many, many people, and not due to any particular expertise or wisdom, but rather by dint of his having tremendous wealth and a willingness to spend it in ways he thinks best.  I think the rule and function of the Church is predominantly to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  

Candidly, I don't know that the Lord would bless the Church if it were to take on this sort of Social Crusader-style role.  That is not the intended purpose of the institution.  It can and must help its members and neighbors.  But it must also be a good and wise steward of its finances.  And it must also refrain from accruing to itself unseemly power or "influence."  But large-scale spending of tens of billions of dollars would necessarily result in the Church doing just that.

So I don't think the Church can, or ought, to "go big or go home."  It needs to take a prudent and cautious and self-determined path, one which involves both extensive humanitarian outreach and good financial decisions, and which decisions will need to be based on reasoning, evidence, "vetting," and so on, and which decisions should resist substantial social pressure to just throw money around because a bunch of self-appointed critics and faultfinders are demanding it.

By design, the Church does not have secular governmental authority.  And it does not endorse particular candidates or political parties or platforms.  

I don't think the Church is supposed to be a Power Player, as the unelected Mr. Gates has been.  Elected officials ought to set policies, rules, regulations, etc.  And scientists and other experts in various disciplines can formulate strategies for addressing humanitarian needs.  And various NGOs can be created so as to tackle this or that aspect of needs in this or that area of the globe.

The Church is not situated to set policy, which is the role of the State.

The Church has some areas of expertise in terms of food production, water wells, disaster relief, and so on. But it lacks any particular skill or resources relative to large-scale medical needs, vaccines, and so on.  And the Church's skills (in, say, industrial food production) may not be adaptable or suitable to the humanitarian needs of a given area.  This is where scientists and other experts can come into play.

The Church often lacks the requisite means and resources to deploy its means and skills.  The Church therefore partners with folks who do have expertise (and experience, and familiarity with local laws/customs, etc.).

All of these things require a lot of time and attention.  A lot of vetting.  "The Church can’t just send out cash and checks to people, he said. 'It has to be done in an organized way, and with follow up, with training, a lot of expertise and good partners. Otherwise, you just don’t get any results.'"

41 minutes ago, pogi said:

That is a poor excuse to not do more to fulfill our mission.

Straw man.  

41 minutes ago, pogi said:

We are going to be criticized no matter what we do,

Oh, I agree with you there.  

41 minutes ago, pogi said:

so I say "choose the right and let the consequence follow". 

So do I.

But I also say "Let's listen to what the General Authorities have said.  And let's acknowledge the things the Church has done, and is doing, and is working to improve.  And let's also acknowledge that proper stewardship of sacred funds requires the Church to provide humanitarian assistance 'in an organized way, and with follow up, with training, a lot of expertise and good partners.'"

41 minutes ago, pogi said:

Our decision making process should not be centered around how others might criticize us, that is a terrible way to run a church. 

I never said anything about "centered around."

But there are times when critics and opponents of the Church have a point, so it's worth at least listening to their criticisms.  I don't think the Church ought to be using its wealth to dictate broad social/governmental policy (as the Gates Foundation has alleged to be doing).  I don't think the Church out to vary from its divine mandates.  

In terms of humanitarian efforts, I think there needs to be a high level of scrupulosity.  The Gates Foundation seems to attach all sorts of strings to their efforts, and may have some ulterior motives as well.  The Red Cross has materially botched any number of humanitarian efforts, and have diverted or mismanaged or wasted substantial financial and other resources.  The solution, I think, is to do . . . what the Presiding Bishopric has been doing for a while now.

41 minutes ago, pogi said:

Jesus and Joseph Smith would have been immobilized in their missions with that attitude.  Not to mention, keeping the status quo despite exponential growth in wealth beyond what is reasonable while we sit by and watch other suffer where we could offer aid is going to engender far more severe criticism.  And it would all be deserved.

Throwing huge amounts money around willy-nilly would also be a bad idea.

41 minutes ago, pogi said:

4) "but I think that goes against the Church's generalized propensity to downsize".  I disagree with this statement completely. 

Okay.  I think that's the state of things.  The Church has grown quite a bit in the last 50 years, yet it has not opened up new schools, or hospitals, or banks, etc.  To the contrary, it has downsized.  The Church can only have so many fingers in so many pies.  Early on, the Church had to create infrastructure for its people, hence we got ZCMI, Zions Bank, LDS Hospital, schools, and so on.  As society great and became capable of providing these resources, the Church has scaled them back and downsized.  That seems sensible.

The Church is not supposed to be all things to all people.  And I think that sentiment extends to humanitarian efforts.  I don't think the Church wants to be a one-stop shop, and more to the point, I don't think it can be, or ought to be.  The solution, then, is to A) utilize the Church's substantive resources (foodstuffs, local units helping in disaster relief, clean water wells dug by BYU engineering students, and so on), and B) partner with governments, NGOs, etc. for large-scale efforts and matters that are outside the Church's skills or reach.

41 minutes ago, pogi said:

It goes against the stated mission of the church which requires growth in every area.

I don't know what you are saying here.  The Church sold LDS Hospital and Zions Bank.  Do you think it was wrong to downsize in these ways?  That is has some sort of obligation to maintain each and every endeavor in starts in perpetuity?

41 minutes ago, pogi said:

Downsizing efforts is not moral when we are sitting on 100 billion dollars which is growing exponentially.  Downsize in everything except wealth accumulation is not a reasonable mission and direction for the church. 

Oh, come on.  My comments about "downsizing" were not about downsizing humanitarian efforts.  Get real.

41 minutes ago, pogi said:

We need to be using a much higher percentage of that wealth to expand efforts in fulfilling our stated missions, including humanitarian efforts.

That is what Bishop Causse is said the Church is doing.

41 minutes ago, pogi said:

The church is only investing an almost invisible fraction of what they could to this effort.  They could do far more to expand efforts.  Even if they just started using 2-5% of the EPA funds to build the infrastructure and ground work with partners, then start directing efforts for humanitarian work, they would still keep growing in wealth beyond what we need.   That fund doesn't need any more money funneled into it. 

We're just repeating ourselves now.  I think you are substantially underestimating both what the Church has done and is doing, and is trying to do to improve.  I also think you are not accounting for the "vetting" that the Church needs to do.

41 minutes ago, pogi said:

The status quo of continuing to funnel billions into a giant account that is earning good interest on its 100 billion annually is going to become (if it hasn't already) unconscionable for many members. 

I acknowledge that.  Those who are speaking out of anger, who are ignoring relevant explanations and information the Church has provided (such as from the Presiding Bishopric), etc., perhaps ought to take a step back, take a breather, give the Brethren both a bit of time and the benefit of the doubt, and meanwhile work as an individual to "be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness."

41 minutes ago, pogi said:

You seem to think that I am suggesting that we just unload all of this money blindly and unorderly.  Nope.  Not at all. 

Yep, that seems to be what you are doing.  I am contradicting you because you are contradicting, or else just straight up ignoring, the comments I have repeatedly quoted from the Presiding Bishopric about this very issue.

41 minutes ago, pogi said:

There are much smarter and more experienced people than me that they can hire to help with all of that.  Placing this on my shoulders to figure out is silly.  

I have not done that.

41 minutes ago, pogi said:

Please enlighten me.  What are the ramifications?  Criticism?  Hard work? Expense?  Potential waste? Getting taken advantage of?  Failures along the way?  Anything else? 

Straying from the Church's mandated purposes.

Failing to be wide stewards of the Church's resources.

Focusing on humanitarian outreach as principally a function of the institutional Church giving billions away.

Putting the Church into an ill-advised "Power Player" position.

Failing to sufficiently vet and monitor humanitarian projects and partners.

Facilitating greed and corruption.

I think the leaders of the Church, particularly the Presiding Bishopric (who have the primary responsibilities in this area) just might be as concerned for their fellow man, and as willing and desirous to help, as you are.  But perhaps the administering of billions of dollars in an arena (international outreach) which is well known for graft, corruption, malfeasance, etc., requires a bit more time and effort than bystanders realize.  Perhaps there are bottlenecks and other constraints.  Perhaps the unverified media reports about the Church are overstated or inaccurate.  Perhaps the totality of the Church's humanitarian efforts are understated ("Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them" and all that).  

41 minutes ago, pogi said:
Quote

I honestly question if folks like you have thought through the ramifications of what you are espousing.  

On the flip, are you considering the benefits vs the risks and the potential to learn from mistakes along the way?  If we don't start somewhere, no good gets done.

Right.  The Church hasn't "start{ed}" its humanitarian efforts yet.  

"No good" has been done.

41 minutes ago, pogi said:

Doing something for a good cause (our mission in fact) and failing will hurt less then doing nothing at all out of fear of failure. 

I have not suggested that the Church ought to act out of "fear of failure," or that it is doing so now.

41 minutes ago, pogi said:

And I honestly don't think you have thought through the ramifications of what you are espousing.    

I am espousing A) listening to what the Brethren have said, B) acknowledging the past, present and ongoing efforts of the Church, C) consider the real-world "wise stewardship" considerations the Church must take into account, D) qualify comparisons of the Church to other groups/entities, E) give the Brethren a bit of grace and patience (and quit speaking evil of them), F) pray for them rather than publicly speak against them, and G) look to our own individual abilities and opportunities to help in humanitarian efforts.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
13 hours ago, smac97 said:

Got it.

Meanwhile, the "Widow's Mite" folks are doing essentially the same thing.

The same thing?  Do they run a church?  Do they expect 10% of ones income to receive the highest ordinances of said church?  When they do that then maybe you have a point.  Till then not so much.

 

 

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not indignant.  I was noting the irony of their failure to adhere to notions of "transparency" they expect in others.

Since you keep repeating it it seems more than simply noting the irony.

 

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

I neither like nor dislike it.  It doesn't move the needle much either way.

Then stop brining it up.

 

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

 

Not sure about that.

YOu are not sure the church requires tithing to be in good standing.  Ok we can rephrase.  They require to get into the temple.  You know. The place you have to go for the ordinances required for exaltation.

 

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

Actually, I do.  The Church is situated such that it has all sorts of eyes on it.  Many of its critics and detractors - some of which are still members of the Church - would love to catch the Church with its hand in the cookie jar.  Much of the newsworthiness of last week's story about the SEC fines arose from the story's rarity.  That the Church functions as well as it does under such close and adversarial scrutiny is, for me, pretty good evidence of a lack of "profligate spending, waste, incompetence, malicious behavior, etc."

 have already agreed to your positions stated above.  It is not about those issues at least for me.

 

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

Nebulous terms like "transparency" and "accountability" from the critics of the Church don't clarify much.

Felt the same way when I was a giving member.  And the terms are not nebulous.  Not at all.

 

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

Meanwhile, most of the observant Latter-day Saints (who, unlike most critics, actively tithe, and so have "skin in the game," and are more reasonably entitled to want "accountability") seem to be satisfied that the Church is accountable for its finances.  I commented on this back in 2021:

Well of course they do.  It is not a good thing to question the leaders. It is pretty ingrained in the culture not to.  As for skin in the game, sure I do not donate now. But I did. For most of my life, Quite a substantial amount.  And if I were confident that the church would put more resources to work I might continue to give to certain funds of the church.

Quote

I also think that most reasonably-informed members understand and appreciate that setting aside reserve funds and planning for the future does not mean simply stuffing money in a metaphorical mattress, but instead involves prudent use and investment of such funds.  The Parable of the Talents not only lauds such prudent use by the "good and faithful servant{s}," but also condemns the servant who buried the talent given to him and did nothing with it.

$180 billion is quite the reserve fund.  It would find the church's operations for 30 years.  Heck, just the income could fund the church operation into perpetuity without touching the principle.

Quote

I also think that most reasonably-informed members understand and appreciate that the Brethren are not getting rich.  Their living allowances are static, uniform and fairly modest given the amount of work they do, the skills involved, and the alternatives available to so many of them.

No they are not. I think they should be paid more.  But the Church as an entity is rans right up there as one of the most wealthy organizations that exists.  And compared to its resources what it does for humanitarian aid is a pittance. 

 

And then you take your typical through a lot of mud on the wall approach to disparage the Gates Foundation. It is a distraction and typica of your debating style. How is it going?  I am not going to read all the negative articles you dug up because it really is irrelevant to the discussion here.  Don't you have confidence the church could do better?

 

And then you start another typical course of debate. You make personal attacks and whine about how awful the critics of the church are and how they will never be satisfied. I imagine there are some like that. I am not. 


 

Quote

I respectfully submit that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has an important role to play, but that role is not primarily about it, as an institution, financially bankrolling efforts in ways similar to the Gates Foundation, or even the Red Cross.

So the Church of Jesus Christ has only a small role in assisting humanity and relieving sufferings.  Rather their role with their assets is to to continue to amass wealth?

The Church Jesus Christ should simply continue to amass wealth and not use its vast resources to bless humanity and relieve suffering because....It is to hard?

Quote

 I think such matters are necessarily outside the province of the institutional Church.  

Why is that?

 

Quote

Should its members be involved in governmental and philanthropic efforts to improve the condition of the world and its inhabitants?  Certainly.  As individuals.  Should the institutional Church assist in such efforts?  Yes, but not as a Power Player (like Bill Gates), and not as an organization that is straying from its intended and appropriate mandates (as it would by trying to be like the Red Cross).  

It does not have to be like the Red Cross or the Gates foundation.  IT can forge its own path.  If it continues on the path it is on now the church will become a trillion $ organization perhaps in your lifetime.  How is that within its mission?


 

Quote

If the Church were to alter course and start investing tens of billions of dollars in ways similar to Bill Gates, it would be susceptible to many of the same criticisms Bill Gates has received.  And many of those criticisms would be justified.  Mr. Gates is not an elected official.  He is making huge decisions for many, many people, and not due to any particular expertise or wisdom, but rather by dint of his having tremendous wealth and a willingness to spend it in ways he thinks best.  I think the rule and function of the Church is predominantly to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  

So because its hard just don't do it.  Continue to amass great wealth. And not the church claims to have three other missions besides the one you state.

Quote

Candidly, I don't know that the Lord would bless the Church if it were to take on this sort of Social Crusader-style role.  That is not the intended purpose of the institution.  It can and must help its members and neighbors.  But it must also be a good and wise steward of its finances.  And it must also refrain from accruing to itself unseemly power or "influence."  But large-scale spending of tens of billions of dollars would necessarily result in the Church doing just that.

Candidly I  think you are worshipping a different Jesus than the one of the NT.  And I am not advocating to be a socials crusader.  There is much the church could do to start with.  And I would recommend they start slow and cautious but start. See ideas below.

Quote

The Church is intended to be perpetual.  And its members are in the millions.  And its leaders hold and oversee the money in trust as a fiduciary.

And they have accomplished the goal of perpetuity and beyond.  And buy the way a fiduciary is required to be accountable and give an accounting so they are doing a poor job of that part of they duties.

Quote

 

“The people who say we’re not doing our part, that is just not true,” Bishop Waddell said. “We’re talking close to $1 billion in that welfare/humanitarian area on an annual basis. Yes, we are using our resources to bless the poor and the needy as well as all of the other responsibilities we have as a church.”

The figure includes all humanitarian and welfare expenditures, including fast offering aid.

The budget for humanitarian work “has gone up dramatically,” Bishop Waddell said.

In fact, Bishop Caussé added, humanitarian expenditures have doubled in the past five years.

“And we believe they are going to increase fast,” he said.

Increases in humanitarian and welfare spending are driven first by the contributions and volunteerism of church members, the bishops said. The other major factor is how quickly the church can ensure new avenues for precise giving. For example, Latter-day Saint Charities carefully and thoroughly assesses each partner. “The last thing you want to do is just give them money and then you really don’t know where it goes,” Bishop Davies said. “So we have both missionaries and area staff on the ground, feet on the ground, who actually are there, they can see that food’s being distributed, or equipment, or schools are being built as part of our program.”

 

A billion $ is a lot of money.  But it is a small amount compared to the resources the church has. I commend them for doing more.  They can still do far more.  And they can set up plans and a system on how to do more responsibly.  Why does annual humanitarian aid have to be limited to what the members give annually?  Why don't they use income from their investment funds. Put another few billion to work annually for a start.  And the budget went up dramatically for humanitarian aid because the church was doing hardly anything historically at least compared to their resources.

Quote

Are you still skinning puppies for and profit

I guess it hurts your conscience to try to answer such a question.

Quote

As of 2020, the Church had doubled its humanitarian spending over the past five years, spends $1 billion/year on humanitarian aid (which expenditures the Church anticipates "are going to increase fast"), spends $1.5 billion in subsidizing the education of 90,000 students, operates 27 wheat storage facilities and more than 100 bishops’ storehouses, funds nine refugee resettlement agencies in the United States, manages thousand and thousands of buildings and programs, and so on.

Yes the church does a lot.  And it sits on $180 billion of non operating assets.  If can do more.

Quote

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

I said:

Quote

Well I am happy to hear that.

Quote

I don't think you understand my point.

Feel free to clarify.

Quote



It has started.  It has a plan.  Nevertheless, you just publicly accused it of only planning "to just amass more and  more wealth and just let people suffer."

Ok it has started.  INO it can and should do more because it is annually amassing more wealth while people do suffer. Sorry if that hurts your tender feelings.

Quote

There is no satisfying such relentless backbiting.  Ever.

Oh boo fricken hoo.  Your church is wealth beyond imagination. And I helped it get there.  You know, you are convincing me of one thing.  Maybe what the church is doing with its wealth is immoral.  And your approach in defending that as well.  I refer you to King Benjamin's comments on imparting of wealth:

Mosiah 4: 16-24

Quote

 

16 And also, ye yourselves will asuccor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the bbeggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish.

17 Perhaps thou shalt asay: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just—

18 But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God.

19 For behold, are we not all abeggars? Do we not all depend upon the same Being, even God, for all the substance which we have, for both food and raiment, and for gold, and for silver, and for all the riches which we have of every kind?

20 And behold, even at this time, ye have been calling on his name, and begging for a aremission of your sins. And has he suffered that ye have begged in vain? Nay; he has poured out his bSpirit upon you, and has caused that your hearts should be filled with cjoy, and has caused that your mouths should be stopped that ye could not find utterance, so exceedingly great was your joy.

21 And now, if God, who has created you, on whom you are dependent for your lives and for all that ye have and are, doth grant unto you whatsoever ye ask that is right, in faith, believing that ye shall receive, O then, how ye ought to aimpart of the substance that ye have one to another.

22 And if ye ajudge the man who putteth up his petition to you for your substance that he perish not, and condemn him, how much more just will be your bcondemnation for withholding your substance, which doth not belong to you but to God, to whom also your life cbelongeth; and yet ye put up no petition, nor repent of the thing which thou hast done.

23 I say unto you, wo be unto that man, for his substance shall perish with him; and now, I say these things unto those who are arich as pertaining to the things of this world.

24 And again, I say unto the poor, ye who have not and yet have sufficient, that ye remain from day to day; I mean all you who deny the beggar, because ye have not; I would that ye say in your hearts that: I agive not because I bhave not, but if I had I would cgive.

 

Carry in Smac.  The wealth of your church may perish with it.  

Link to comment
51 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have never suggested that the Church "not work."

Let me refresh your memory of how this interaction first started.  You stated:

"Is the Church really situated to improve administering relief...?"

I replied, "I sure hope so as it is part of our mission".  I stated it will require work but that is no excuse to not make the effort. You didn't seem to agree and rebutted my response.  Are you agreeing now?  If you agree, why did you rebut me with a bunch of excuses why improving our efforts wouldn't work?

51 minutes ago, smac97 said:

First, whom are you quoting here?  I did not type the statement you have in quotes.

It is a direct quote from you:

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think the Church is not supposed to play the role you seem to want it to play

I don't think the Church is situated to take on the role you want it to.  And again, I don't think it's supposed to take on that role.

51 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Second, what I did say was this:

No, you did say what I quoted.  You seem to be imaging things about the role you think that I want it to play - as THE primary role.  I am simply stating that we need to do more as it is a primary role (it is one of only 4 missions and a primary purpose of tithing).  This all started in response to your doubt filled question about the church being situated to improve administering relief.  That is the thrust of my problem with your approach.  If we are not situated, then lets get situated.  That is all I am saying.  I have offered some suggestions as to ways I think we could improve, but I will leave that up to the experts (which we don't seem to have on our pay-roll currently.) 

51 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Third, you are stating that "yes...it is {the primary role of the Church, as an institution, financially bankrolling efforts in ways similar to the Gates Foundation, or even the Red Cross}."

No, that is NOT what I said.  The brackets are your words.

Let me refresh your memory again as to how this all started.  What I did say is this:

Quote

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 continuously working to improve administering relief. 

To which you responded:

"Quite so."

51 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Fourth, I think you are incorrect on this.  Again, from Elder Bednar (an my commentary) :

It would help if you didn't put words in my mouth.  I never said it was the primary role.  Bednar's words don't disagree with me.  Not to mention, Bednar was speaking without knowledge of the extent of the wealth the church was sitting on.  From his perspective of what they were paying in humanitarian aid at the time in proportion to tithing coming in, the percentage was significant.  In proportion to the wealth the church actually has, it was vanishingly small.  

That is about as far as I care to go.  Please don't waste your breath in these long posts.  I am not even going to read all of it let alone respond.   It is severely imbalanced in proportion to my comments and is responding to positions I don't hold. 

 

 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Can the Church do more?  Sure.  But I think folks like you have not thought things through, and are jumping to unwarranted conclusions

You know this is pretty arrogant of you. How do you know @pogihas not thought things through?  Based on other things I have seen from Pogi I think  Pogi has thought things through quite well.  So stop being so condescending.  Maybe you need to think about how you are approaching this a bit more and the morality of it.

Edited by Teancum
Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Right.  The Church hasn't "start{ed}" its humanitarian efforts yet.  

"No good" has been done.

I am clearly talking about the reserves and how we are going to use that in the future as it continues to grow exponentially.  We have not begun to use it for humanitarian purposes. 

We are funneling in more money from excess tithing into these reserves every year than we are spending on humanitarian efforts, and it is growing by 8-12% interest.   Something needs to give here.  That is explosive growth.  We can't/shouldn't continue at that rate without using a proportion for humanitarian purposes.  That has not yet begun. 

 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, pogi said:

We have not begun to use it for humanitarian purposes. 

A nitpick…the information we have on spending is only from the Nielsen exposé, correct?  If so, that is four years out of date assuming it was correct to begin with.  I think it is better to add a “as far as we know” to the beginning of the statement to be accurate.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
1 minute ago, Calm said:

A nitpick…the information we have on spending is only from the Nielsen exposé, correct?  If so, that is four years out of date assuming it was correct to begin with.  I think it is better to add a “as far as we know” to the beginning of the statement to be accurate.

Yes, but it is also based on church statements about how it uses tithing/offerings as it follows principles of self reliance.  From what has been revealed, all church expenses and humanitarian aid is paid for from tithing and fast offerings.   According to the principles of self-reliance they are careful to spend less on these efforts than they bring in.  All surplus that is not used in those efforts are then funneled into the reserves for "saving and investing".   

 

Link to comment
20 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am less persuaded that the endless slew of deprecations and demands for "more" actually have much to do with concern about "the poor."  It's all about casting the Latter-day Saints in the worst possible light.  To wit, the claim that I or anyone else in the Church want it "to just amass more and  more wealth and just let people suffer."

One of the best ways for an individual to help the poor is to give a substantial fast offering every month. 100% goes to assist those in need. No one takes a percentage for administrative or personnel costs. It’s a brilliantly simple and effective program in which anyone can participate, even non-members or disaffected members. It could easily be adopted by other churches and charitable organizations. Inexplicably, it rarely gets even a nod from critics of the Church. If it were widely practiced, there would be no poor among us.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

For some reason you reminded me of a friend who recently shared this experience: 

"Once upon a time not long ago a good friend’s mother passed away. She had been a faithful believing, tithe paying member her entire life. At her funeral the bishop pulled out her last tithing envelope that she had asked her husband to turn in. This was her final testimony on tithing. The ward then asked the family to pay for the ham for her funeral luncheon because it was not in their budget."

Gotta call horse puckey on that story. Never happened.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Failing to sufficiently vet and monitor humanitarian projects and partners.

Facilitating greed and corruption.

A friend who is a political refugee from Myanmar/Burma notes that when relief food is distributed in her country, the army paints over the original source information on the aid crates with Myanmar military government words.

 

14 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Well, I doubt my friend is lying. I know I’m not. 

Perhaps, but with your past experience you have to have really, really, really serious doubts, no? Which ward was it?

Link to comment
Just now, Bernard Gui said:

A friend who is a political refugee from Myanmar/Burma notes that when relief food is distributed in her country, the army paints over the original source information on the aid crates with Myanmar military government words.

 

Perhaps, but with your past experience you have to have really, really, really serious doubts, no? Which ward was it?

I’ll ask her. But no, I don’t have serious doubts about the story. I’ve seen bishops and other church leaders do some pretty stupid and crappy things. As I said, my friend does not have a history of lying to me. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, pogi said:

I am clearly talking about the reserves and how we are going to use that in the future as it continues to grow exponentially.  We have not begun to use it for humanitarian purposes. 

We are funneling in more money from excess tithing into these reserves every year than we are spending on humanitarian efforts, and it is growing by 8-12% interest.   Something needs to give here.  That is explosive growth.  We can't/shouldn't continue at that rate without using a proportion for humanitarian purposes.  That has not yet begun. 

Wise investment guarantees a secure future.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I’ll ask her. But no, I don’t have serious doubts about the story. I’ve seen bishops and other church leaders do some pretty stupid and crappy things. As I said, my friend does not have a history of lying to me. 

I have never heard anything comparable with this, and I have been around for a long time. If it is true, what were the circumstances that led to the request?

 

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
59 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

One of the best ways for an individual to help the poor is to give a substantial fast offering every month. 100% goes to assist those in need. No one takes a percentage for administrative or personnel costs. It’s a brilliantly simple and effective program in which anyone can participate, even non-members or disaffected members. It could easily be adopted by other churches and charitable organizations. Inexplicably, it rarely gets even a nod from critics of the Church. If it were widely practiced, there would be no poor among us.

And I believe the majority of the humanitarian needs are met by these fast offerings. I highly doubt much if any comes from the Ensign Peak account or other for profit entities. So really where is the sacrifice on the church's money making accounts???? Like they ask the members to sacrifice???

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I have never heard anything comparable with this, and I have been around for a long time. If it is true, what were the circumstances that led to the request?

 

Per my friend: it was in Spanish Fork, Utah, August 2022, funeral for a woman with the last name of Williams (no relation, I don’t think). She says it’s “ironic” she’s being accused of making up the story. I think so, too. 

Heaven knows my family’s experience with one bishop was much worse. 

Edited by jkwilliams
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...