The Widow's Mite Website and Church Finances

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

really where is the sacrifice on the church's money making accounts

The Church is simply an organization of individuals.  If the individuals are sacrificing, why must the Church as well?  To me it is like asking a building built by church members to sacrifice, it doesn’t make any sense.  I think you are anthropomorphizing the organization.  Who would experience any sense of deprivation or spiritual development if money was taken from the Church and given to another?  The Church lacks feelings or thought.  Who would have to adapt, etc.?  Only individual members if they had to start paying budget, covering more of missionary costs, building funds, etc again.  Are you actually thinking that individual members should be sacrificing more?

Edited March 11, 2023 by Calm

[Smiley McGee]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

The Church is simply an organization of individuals…I think you are anthropomorphizing the organization.

Ya, how dare @Tacenda project human traits on to a group of……humans…..

6 hours ago, Calm said:

The Church lacks feelings or thought.

Oof. This is essentially the contention of those who disagree with the church’s accumulation of wealth. 

Edited March 11, 2023 by Smiley McGee

[Okrahomer]

36 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

This is essentially the contention of those who disagree with the church’s accumulation of wealth.

A contention that almost never accounts for the sheer volume and impact of things like fast offerings and volunteer work. 

 

 

Edited March 11, 2023 by Okrahomer

[pogi]

Nevermind

 

Edited March 11, 2023 by pogi

[Tacenda]

14 hours 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.

The church gets richer the poor get poorer when you say members need to give a substantial amount. I would always give a substantial fast offering, because it was doable, but what of those that it's not, and where is the substantial fast offering given by the for profit end of the church?? By members being the only ones donating to the needs of others, why isn't the corporate side doing it, or if they are I'd love to know. 

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Smiley McGee said:

how dare @Tacenda project human traits on to a group of……humans

We talk about the Church as a living entity all the time, so it is understandable when it gets done in this area as well. Plus under certain circumstances calling on the Church to sacrifice is appropriate language.  But the purpose of sacrificing doesn’t make sense to speak of separately from the individuals (think of a Church fast…it is not the organization that fasts, but the individual members) and if I understand Tacenda correctly, she believes the individuals have sacrificed enough, so when she calls on the Church to sacrifice, if it were to sacrifice like it does with a fast, this would actually be contrary to Tacenda’s wishes. She wants to protect individuals from having to sacrifice more when she believes the funds are there to meet needs and more. 

I am not challenging her call for the Church to donate more from its funds or whatever (meaning leadership decides to release more money from its assets).  I am just pointing using the argument of sacrifice is inappropriate for what she desires, which is if I understand her correctly for members not to have to sacrifice as much. 

It would be better to clearly indicate who she is talking about, which I am guessing is senior leadership. One can then address likely actual intent and motivations rather than making vague arguments.  And if she means to call senior leadership to repentance, why not express it that way so there is no mistake thinking she wants all individual members to give more rather than just the ones well situated or for senior leadership to allocate more church funds for needs in communities, etc. rather than retaining them in investments.  At most, this might be an emotional sacrifice by leaders as paying out the funds does not affect them financially in a personal way at all (not out of their own pockets, which would be required for the usual financial sacrifice we teach).

Edited March 11, 2023 by Calm

[Tacenda]

15 hours 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. 

My bishop made an example of a couple in our ward that struggled to pay tithing at all in a sacrament meeting. And when they finally got on board he used their names and everything to tell their story. I'm sure with their approval, but still. 

Edited March 11, 2023 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

We talk about the Church as a living entity all the time, so it is understandable when it gets done in this area as well. Plus under certain circumstances calling on the Church to sacrifice is appropriate language.  But the purpose of sacrificing doesn’t make sense to speak of separately from the individuals (think of a Church fast…it is not the organization that fasts, but the individual members) and if I understand Tacenda correctly, she believes the individuals have sacrificed enough, so when she calls on the Church to sacrifice, if it were to sacrifice like it does with a fast, this would actually be contrary to Tacenda’s wishes. She wants to protect individuals from having to sacrifice more when she believes the funds are there to meet needs and more. 

I am not challenging her call for the Church to donate more from its funds or whatever (meaning leadership decides to release more money from its assets).  I am just pointing using the argument of sacrifice is inappropriate for what she desires, which is if I understand her correctly for members not to have to sacrifice as much. 

I don't mind members doing fast offering, in fact like I said in another post I would donate generously because usually I got flack when donating to charities from my husband because he felt we were doing enough by paying tithing and fast offerings, or he didn't trust anyone other than the church to make sure funds went where they needed to go. Now all I'm asking is for the church's for profit groups or the EPA to sacrifice, or do more. It doesn't seem that they do that at the direction of the leaders, since the EPA fund isn't taxed and it's suppose to be charitable. 

[webbles]

20 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

It doesn't seem that they do that at the direction of the leaders, since the EPA fund isn't taxed and it's suppose to be charitable.

"charitable" in US tax law doesn't solely mean "giving to the poor" or "helping the poor" or anything like that.  From https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-purposes

Quote

The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erection or maintenance of public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.

Since the EPA is for the advancement of religion (it invests the money of a church), it is, by legal definition, "charitable".  I agree that we generally don't think "charitable" to mean that but when discussing whether EPA should pay taxes or not, we should use the legal definition.

It is probably possible to argue that EPA isn't really advancing a religion since it isn't distributing the money back to the church, but I don't think that is because EPA won't distribute it back.  The church has never asked EPA (except in some rare situations that are iffy) to distribute the money back.

[MiserereNobis]

16 hours 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.

In some post in some thread somewhere, someone claimed that giving money to fast offerings doesn't mean that the money ultimately ends up there (a disclaimer on the donation form, I think?). Is this accurate? If I gave to fast offerings, is it assured that 100% of my donation would go to the poor?

Also, what is the procedure for non-LDS to gain assistance through fast offerings? I've never seen it advertised to the poor or homeless, but obviously that doesn't mean it hasn't been. But I have spent time working with the homeless and have seen lists of organizations that offer resources. LDS fast offerings were not on them.

ETA: I think I was unclear. I made it sound like the poster said that the donation *doesn't* go to fast offerings, when my understanding is that the poster said it doesn't have to go there if the church wants to put it elsewhere.

Edited March 11, 2023 by MiserereNobis

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

In some post in some thread somewhere, someone claimed that giving money to fast offerings doesn't mean that the money ultimately ends up there (a disclaimer on the donation form, I think?). Is this accurate? If I gave to fast offerings, is it assured that 100% of my donation would go to the poor?

Also, what is the procedure for non-LDS to gain assistance through fast offerings? I've never seen it advertised to the poor or homeless, but obviously that doesn't mean it hasn't been. But I have spent time working with the homeless and have seen lists of organizations that offer resources. LDS fast offerings were not on them.

Wow, that is interesting, hopefully it is entirely for the poor and needy and not to buy an expensive rug or vase for the temple. I don't think the Lord would be happy about it regardless if He liked expensive oils, of which people give this as an example. 

[MiserereNobis]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Wow, that is interesting, hopefully it is entirely for the poor and needy and not to buy an expensive rug or vase for the temple. I don't think the Lord would be happy about it regardless if He liked expensive oils, of which people give this as an example. 

Hey, I think my post was a little unclear so I added this: 

ETA: I think I was unclear. I made it sound like the poster said that the donation *doesn't* go to fast offerings, when my understanding is that the poster said it doesn't have to go there if the church wants to put it elsewhere.

[CV75]

31 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Hey, I think my post was a little unclear so I added this: 

ETA: I think I was unclear. I made it sound like the poster said that the donation *doesn't* go to fast offerings, when my understanding is that the poster said it doesn't have to go there if the church wants to put it elsewhere.

Yes, the bottom of the online donation slip says, "All donations to the Church are free-will offerings and become the Church’s property. In furtherance of its overall mission, the Church may shift donations from any designated use to other uses, at its sole discretion."

Now that seems pretty transparent to me; if it gives anyone hiccups, don't donate!

Edited March 11, 2023 by CV75

[MiserereNobis]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, the bottom of the online donation slip says, "All donations to the Church are free-will offerings and become the Church’s property. In furtherance of its overall mission, the Church may shift donations from any designated use to other uses, at its sole discretion."

Now that seems pretty transparent to me; if it gives anyone hiccups, don't donate!

So, as a hypothetical, someone could donate to fast offerings and that money end up in EPA?

How could one vet fast offerings like one vets other charities (percent used for the charity, percent used for overhead, etc)? On the face of it it doesn't seem like one could, which makes donating to fast offering as a non-LDS not a wise donation.

Edited March 11, 2023 by MiserereNobis

[Bernard Gui]

14 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

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. 

Where’s the irony?

So, the circumstances…..? There is more to the story, no?

Edited March 11, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[CV75]

10 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

So, as a hypothetical, someone could donate to fast offerings and that money end up in EPA?

How could one vet fast offerings like one vets other charities (percent used for the charity, percent used for overhead, etc)? On the face of it it doesn't seem like one could, which makes donating to fast offering as a non-LDS not a wise donation.

Any hypothetical can be used -- a coin ended up in a fish for tax purposes, so I suppose anything is possible. I was hoping someone would cite the references for how tithing and fast offerings procedures are managed procedurally from donor-to-disposition (I know there is one).

Whether or not it is a wise choice for the non-LDS to donate is entirely up to them; I don't think anyone is going to try to convince them to donate.

Edited March 11, 2023 by CV75

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Bernard Gui said:

So, the circumstances…..? There i# more to the story. 

Not really. She said it is an affluent ward, and she was with the woman’s son when the bishop asked him to pay for the hams because the ward budget wouldn’t cover it. The son, who is an active member, was a little annoyed. Not the end of the world. I’ve seen much worse. 

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

The church gets richer the poor get poorer when you say members need to give a substantial amount. I would always give a substantial fast offering, because it was doable, but what of those that it's not, and where is the substantial fast offering given by the for profit end of the church?? By members being the only ones donating to the needs of others, why isn't the corporate side doing it, or if they are I'd love to know. 

Members are free to donate whatever they feel is doable or substantial or not at all. I have never regretted increasing that donation. As a bishop, I had access to the entire resources of the Church to help people in need within the guidelines set to prevent abuse of the system. Given the global reach of the Church, I reasonably believe fast offerings funds are not sufficient to cover all such expenditures so they are buttressed by funds from other donations and sources. 

[Bernard Gui]

13 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Not really. She said it is an affluent ward, and she was with the woman’s son when the bishop asked him to pay for the hams because the ward budget wouldn’t cover it. The son, who is an active member, was a little annoyed. Not the end of the world. I’ve seen much worse.

For example, was this the only funeral for a while or were there more that depleted the budget? Was the budget contingency fund depleted? Did the bishop ask affluent members to help with expenses but they refused? For how many people did they provide food? 
 

And I’m sure you have seen incredible compassion and generosity, too. I have  

 

Edited March 11, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Bernard Gui said:

For example, was this the only funeral for a while or were there more that depleted the budget? Was the budget contingency fund depleted? Did the bishop ask affluent members to help with expenses but they refused? For how many people did they provide food? 

You explicitly said the story was “horse puckey” and “never happened.” I’m glad you’re no longer accusing me or my friend of making it up. I have no idea why the bishop did what he did, but none of that has any bearing on the story being a lie. 

[Bernard Gui]

25 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

You explicitly said the story was “horse puckey” and “never happened.” I’m glad you’re no longer accusing me or my friend of making it up. I have no idea why the bishop did what he did, but none of that has any bearing on the story being a lie. 

The story may be true, I will grant that, but it is surely atypical of anything I have ever experienced in the Church, which makes me ask why you chose to share it in a discussion of Church finances and fast offerings?

So, I put myself in the place of the place of the thoughtless bishop and wonder what is his side of the story? What were the circumstances? Since you apparently don't know, perhaps it's not very charitable to tell the story. It very well could still be horse puckey while being true.

 

Edited March 11, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

For example, one inactive sister was receiving substantial assistance from the Church. After a home visit, the RS president noted that she had a new big screen tv in the living room. When she asked us to pay her rent, I pointed this out and said she should return the tv and pay the rent. She was "a little annoyed." We didn't hear from her after that. Was I thoughtless? To a relative or friend telling the story without that circumstance, I would have looked like an ogre. But knowing the background helps one better understand what happened.

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

The story may be true, I will grant that, but it is surely atypical of anything I have ever experienced in the Church, which makes me ask why you chose to share it in a discussion of Church finances and fast offerings?

So, I put myself in the place of the place of the thoughtless bishop and wonder what is his side of the story? What were the circumstances? Since you apparently don't know, perhaps it's not very charitable to tell the story. It very well could still be horse puckey while being true.

 

I said why I shared it. Something pogi said reminded me of it. And I don’t think it’s uncharitable at all to share that story. It might be if I were judging the bishop in any way. 

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

In some post in some thread somewhere, someone claimed that giving money to fast offerings doesn't mean that the money ultimately ends up there (a disclaimer on the donation form, I think?). Is this accurate? If I gave to fast offerings, is it assured that 100% of my donation would go to the poor?

Also, what is the procedure for non-LDS to gain assistance through fast offerings? I've never seen it advertised to the poor or homeless, but obviously that doesn't mean it hasn't been. But I have spent time working with the homeless and have seen lists of organizations that offer resources. LDS fast offerings were not on them.

ETA: I think I was unclear. I made it sound like the poster said that the donation *doesn't* go to fast offerings, when my understanding is that the poster said it doesn't have to go there if the church wants to put it elsewhere.

When I served as bishop, aeons ago, fast offering funds stayed in the ward in which they were donated and were used by the bishop to help members (or non-members on occasion). At the end of the month the account was examined. If there was a surplus, it was remanded to the stake to help wards in deficit. If there was a deficit, the stake reimbursed us. The account always had to zero out. If the stake had a surplus or deficit, the same was true with SLC funds.

It is my understanding that because fast offerings church-wide were not meeting the needs, that all fast offerings now go to SLC and local units. I don't know how the wards are reimbursed. Someone else may know that. The members do not repay the Church for help rendered. 

The fast offering program is not advertised in public, but word gets around. Some folks scam the Church, taking advantage of the charity and compassion of the bishop. So, there is one bishop designated in the stake to handle all requests from people who are not known to local leaders. As a bishop, I was able to help several non-members, but we did not have resources to open it up to all the community.

Edited March 11, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[Meadowchik]

On 3/9/2023 at 5:54 PM, Pyreaux said:

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...

A few million could transform the lives of sexual abuse victims, providing funds for stable lifelong therapeutic support and supplementing income lost due to trauma.