The Widow's Mite Website and Church Finances

[Tacenda]

It looks like both the LDS church and Catholic church might be saving for the eventual problem of being sued for a member or a leader's sexual abuse, or some sort of lawsuit. https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-thursday-edition-1.5393994/only-10-of-pope-s-charitable-fund-goes-to-the-needy-wall-street-journal-1.5394339#:~:text=The Vatican advertises the funds,goes to those in need.

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2023/jan/13/lds-church-settles-with-tacoma-sex-abuse-survivor-/#:~:text=Pfau said his firm has,lawsuits related to sexual abuse.

Edited March 12, 2023 by Tacenda

[Calm]

Well, I did not mean to turn this into a thread to criticize the RCC finances, but that is a good example of a complaint that is similar to what the LDS Church gets in the sense of criticism of “false advertising” and “not helping poor enough”.  So it would be interesting to me to see any variation in response (because I am interested in how people behave differently in similar situations or behave similarly in different situations, not because I want to critique it).

[CV75]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And the church makes up global fast offering shortfalls using surplus tithing? So any donation I give to fast offerings offsets the need for tithing money. Tithing money that is then available to be saved (and never be touched for years) for what the first presidency alone knows what purpose. Not good enough for me. They don’t really have great track record in transparency and truth. Quite the opposite actually. YMMV. 

Please define surplus tithing. My reference to "surplus in other designated categories" was meant to refer to the general fund from the quote.

Edited March 12, 2023 by CV75

[SeekingUnderstanding]

27 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Please define surplus tithing. My reference to "surplus in other designated categories" was meant to refer to the general fund from the quote.

Surplus tithing is the money given to EPA to invest. 

[CV75]

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Surplus tithing is the money given to EPA to invest. 

Please provide the source of that definition. I understand the Church sets aside a portion of x, y, z for the future and invests some of that, but where is it stated that this consists, at least in part, of surplus tithing?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

43 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Please provide the source of that definition. I understand the Church sets aside a portion of x, y, z for the future and invests some of that, but where is it stated that this consists, at least in part, of surplus tithing?

Do you have a point? I’m going off the same public information as everyone else. If you a single shred of evidence to the contrary, I’m all ears. But if all you got is your church’s “carefully worded denials” and obfuscation I’m not interested in your word pretzel games. 

Edited March 12, 2023 by SeekingUnderstanding

[MiserereNobis]

3 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

While this is technically true, the Pope has at his beck and call servants and pretty much anything he wants.  He also lives in a Palace.  Although, I think the current one lives off site of the palace proper now.  Still, he has a better home than I do, with 24 hour security.

Sorry if it wasn’t clear. I was trying to make a joke about it technically being true 😊

[CV75]

14 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Do you have a point? I’m going off the same public information as everyone else. If you a single shred of evidence to the contrary, I’m all ears. But if all you got is your church’s “carefully worded denials” and obfuscation I’m not interested in your word pretzel games. 

Yes, I have a couple of points, in order of priority:

1. I would like to know, conceptually and not semantically, where “surplus tithe” / “excess tithe” is suggested in the public information you referred to.

2. Where there are acknowledged shortfalls in the “Fast Offering” donation category requiring supplementation from elsewhere, there must either be sufficient funds in other donation categories or enough in the “general funds,” a product of the Church “setting aside a portion of its resources (not exclusively revenue or donations) for future needs.”

3) The donation slip allows for “General Offerings” which to me points to the general funds.

Bishop Gérald Caussé Explains the Spiritual Foundations of Church Financial Self-Reliance - Church News and Events (churchofjesuschrist.org)

The Spiritual Foundations of Church Financial Self-Reliance (churchofjesuschrist.org)

Another point that comes to mind is that, just as Fast Offerings have a specific use (and they are all used for the stated purpose given the acknowledged insufficiency), so is Tithing specific to the six major areas listed in the articles above. These needs and expenses line up with tithing revenue. When they do not, they might be supplemented by the general fund/Church resources, or they might supplement fast offerings and welfare assistance, or they might become part of the portion set aside as reserves or future needs, invested in the three ways mentioned in the articles. But I would not generalize the second two as “excess tithing” because it is being managed for use in all major areas, including welfare assistance. For example, is there any such thing your budget as “extra [unneeded] income” or do you actively manage it for whatever expediency might arise – given that you are not out there under the same commission as the Original Twelve in the New Testament?

[Damien the Leper]

On 3/9/2023 at 2:36 PM, JustAnAustralian said:

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

🤣🤣🤣

[Rain]

On 3/12/2023 at 4:44 PM, CV75 said:

Yes, I have a couple of points, in order of priority:

1. I would like to know, conceptually and not semantically, where “surplus tithe” / “excess tithe” is suggested in the public information you referred to.

2. Where there are acknowledged shortfalls in the “Fast Offering” donation category requiring supplementation from elsewhere, there must either be sufficient funds in other donation categories or enough in the “general funds,” a product of the Church “setting aside a portion of its resources (not exclusively revenue or donations) for future needs.”

3) The donation slip allows for “General Offerings” which to me points to the general funds.

Bishop Gérald Caussé Explains the Spiritual Foundations of Church Financial Self-Reliance - Church News and Events (churchofjesuschrist.org)

The Spiritual Foundations of Church Financial Self-Reliance (churchofjesuschrist.org)

Another point that comes to mind is that, just as Fast Offerings have a specific use (and they are all used for the stated purpose given the acknowledged insufficiency), so is Tithing specific to the six major areas listed in the articles above. These needs and expenses line up with tithing revenue. When they do not, they might be supplemented by the general fund/Church resources, or they might supplement fast offerings and welfare assistance, or they might become part of the portion set aside as reserves or future needs, invested in the three ways mentioned in the articles. But I would not generalize the second two as “excess tithing” because it is being managed for use in all major areas, including welfare assistance. For example, is there any such thing your budget as “extra [unneeded] income” or do you actively manage it for whatever expediency might arise – given that you are not out there under the same commission as the Original Twelve in the New Testament?

I'm not who you quoted, but since paying off our house we often have extra.  We do manage for emergencies and long time saving etc. Even fun things, but lately there is "extra". So I could totally see the church having extra as well.  Is the church there yet?  No clue.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

I'm not who you quoted, but since paying off our house we often have extra.  We do manage for emergencies and long time saving etc. Even fun things, but lately there is "extra". So I could totally see the church having extra as well.  Is the church there yet?  No clue.

The point I was trying to make is that as long as income above that necessary for meeting immediate requirements is actively managed,  it is not "extra" income. Extra income would be neglected overflow accessed by other parties.

Semantics, yes, but it helps make my point that the Church is managing its wealth as most responsible people do.

Edited March 14, 2023 by CV75

[smac97]

On 3/11/2023 at 5:30 PM, Tacenda said:

It looks like both the LDS church and Catholic church might be saving for the eventual problem of being sued for a member or a leader's sexual abuse, or some sort of lawsuit. https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-thursday-edition-1.5393994/only-10-of-pope-s-charitable-fund-goes-to-the-needy-wall-street-journal-1.5394339#:~:text=The Vatican advertises the funds,goes to those in need.

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2023/jan/13/lds-church-settles-with-tacoma-sex-abuse-survivor-/#:~:text=Pfau said his firm has,lawsuits related to sexual abuse.

I commented on this second story back in January.  As I noted: "This is not a news report, it is an advertisement for Pfau's law firm."

I think the Church is situated very differently from the Catholic Church (and, for that matter, from most of our Protestant neighbors as well).  I commented on this last May:

Quote

"Boots on the ground" local leaders are the ones interacting with the laity and hence the most likely to have opportunities to engage in misconduct.  This is where we substantially differ, in terms of circumstance, with our Catholic and Protestant neighbors.  Having a lay leadership creates some meaningful distinctions:

A) Volunteers, not Remunerated Employees: Local leaders in the Church are volunteers, not employees.  They are not housed or paid by the Church, and therefore are not reliant on the Church to sustain themselves.  And local leaders are not dependent upon the Church for their housing, income, etc., there is no "moving accused {bishops} around pulpits" as we have seen in other denominations.  

B) Asked to Volunteer, Not Self-Appointed: Local leaders, though "volunteers," are not self-appointed, and are instead "called" to leadership positions.  While certainly not foolproof, this does slow down predators from situating themselves into positions where they have better access to victims.

C) Limited Time in Service: Local leaders in the Church typically function in that role for a period of years, as opposed to such a role being an indeterminate or lifelong vocation and lifestyle as in other faiths.  Moreover, local leaders often have "day jobs" and family responsibilities, so they simply do not have the same "face time" opportunities in terms of sheer numbers of hours and years as compared to local leaders in other denominations.

D) Improved Emphasis and Attention: I think the Church has substantially improved its handling of allegations of abuse.  The bishop's hotline, for example, has likely done much to mitigate abuse, detect it earlier, provide for improved response from the Church, etc.

I think the way the local leaders in the Church are situated creates a serious impediment to bad guys who may seek to use clergy positions to find victims.  See, e.g., here: ...

I should amend this as to item (D) above.  I think many religious groups have, along with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, taken substantial steps toward reducing the risk of abuse to children.

Items (A)-(C) above reduce negative incentives for institutional organizations to conceal abuse.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

51 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I commented on this second story back in January.  As I noted: "This is not a news report, it is an advertisement for Pfau's law firm."

I think the Church is situated very differently from the Catholic Church (and, for that matter, from most of our Protestant neighbors as well).  I commented on this last May:

I should amend this as to item (D) above.  I think many religious groups have, along with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, taken substantial steps toward reducing the risk of abuse to children.

Items (A)-(C) above reduce negative incentives for institutional organizations to conceal abuse.

Thanks,

-Smac

Sometimes the thought enters my mind on why individuals aren't sued and not the church, or am I having a dumb attack?

[Hamilton Porter]

Most people LDS in these collabs with exmos are LDS who retain their membership just for credibility. E.g. Mormonthink.

[Rain]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

The point I was trying to make is that as long as income above that necessary for meeting immediate requirements is actively managed,  it is not "extra" income.

We're probably just going to have to disagree on this. The closest I can think to this is the building assessment of years ago and think the leaders must have felt that at some point that became extra because tithing was enough to cover it. 

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

Extra income would be neglected overflow accessed by other parties.

Semantics, yes, but it helps make my point that the Church is managing its wealth as most responsible people do.

 

[Hamilton Porter]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Sometimes the thought enters my mind on why individuals aren't sued and not the church, or am I having a dumb attack?

You go after the deep pockets.

Dehlin is inciting his mob to get Congress to hold a hearing.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

We're probably just going to have to disagree on this. The closest I can think to this is the building assessment of years ago and think the leaders must have felt that at some point that became extra because tithing was enough to cover it. 

 

If leave your “extra” from selling the house out on the street for anyone who comes by to pick up, then I would agree with you. If not, I don’t consider it “extra” – you are using it for an emergency, investments/build wealth, fun, etc. Likewise, I see the use of tithing for buildings doesn’t mean it is because the Church has extra tithing laying around, but that it has sufficient to cover these costs, and to set some aside for prudency (but not all kinds of expenditures). And yes, it is a matter of semantics, and what we call it fitting our views on money management.

[ksfisher]

23 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Sometimes the thought enters my mind on why individuals aren't sued and not the church, or am I having a dumb attack?

It's because the individuals don't have money.  If you were to win a multi-million dollar judgement against me I doubt you would even get a fraction of that.  I just don't have that much money.

Edited March 15, 2023 by ksfisher

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

You go after the deep pockets.

Dehlin is inciting his mob to get Congress to hold a hearing.

?

[Bernard Gui]

As missionaries in Central America, we saw true poverty up close and personal. Malnutrition and health problems were rampant. Some missionaries would go without food and give some of their money to beggars or other poor people. Sometimes that resulted in coming up short at the end of the month and having no money for food, transportation, and other necessities. We were not allowed to eat with members because two hungry elders could eat the whole week’s food budget of most families. When it comes to money and poverty, wisdom should prevail.  I think the Church is following a very wise course.

Edited March 16, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

You go after the deep pockets.

Dehlin is inciting his mob to get Congress to hold a hearing.

I don’t think his mob is anywhere near big enough to get a congressional hearing.

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Sometimes the thought enters my mind on why individuals aren't sued and not the church, or am I having a dumb attack?

Unless the abuser is wealthy they might be effectively judgment proof. Also if there is a criminal prosecution a convict doesn’t make much.

[Tacenda]

32 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Unless the abuser is wealthy they might be effectively judgment proof. Also if there is a criminal prosecution a convict doesn’t make much.

I guess I should ask what makes the church responsible for a bishop that abuses someone or is there a specific law that makes an organization like the church culpable for someone in their congregation abusing someone.

Not saying the church shouldn't do something monetarily and believe maybe they should out of concern and care for the victims well being. Just wondering how the law is on it, what if a supervisor abuses an employee, could the employee sue the company? Or better, an employee that has the same ranking as another employee abuses the other, could the company they work for be liable?

Maybe I should just say, how is the church liable? And I'm not saying the church shouldn't compensate someone, just is it liable? But as you've said, most people don't have billions at their disposal, but if the church isn't liable, how do cases get determined? Maybe Smac will address this as well. One thing I don't like is the billions of dollars, tithing dollars that are being paid out, but I'm so torn, because I do want the victims compensated as well. 

Edited March 15, 2023 by Tacenda

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, Rain said:

We're probably just going to have to disagree on this. The closest I can think to this is the building assessment of years ago and think the leaders must have felt that at some point that became extra because tithing was enough to cover it. 

 

Which was a welcomed change that reduced the financial burdens on members. The local unit’s portion of a new chapel was also eliminated. It’s nice to have those kinds of reserves.

Edited March 15, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[2BizE]

This quote may be the most profound statement I heard from Smac before:

”I would like to better understand the Church's reasoning for having senior missionaries pay their own way.  My parents served their last mission in Zimbabwe, which was extraordinarily expensive for them.  Perhaps the Church could improve things by helping more senior missionaries/couples on the financial side, which would allow "the membership" to be projected across the world more.”

This is a fantastic statement and question.  Why do senior missionaries have to pay $2500- $5000 per month to serve, when the church is quite often benefiting from their experience? I have seen accountants, beef ranchers, nurses and doctors called on missions to use their expertise and have to pay large amounts of money to serve….all while the church is hoarding $Billions.

I completely agree with you Smac.