The Widow's Mite Website and Church Finances

[JustAnAustralian]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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.

For leaders, I believe the general argument is that the church put the leader in that position, so they have vicarious liability.

[CV75]

On 3/11/2023 at 7:42 PM, Calm said:

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).

I think a parallel is how the Church is inclined to work in ways that supports "undocumented people" (immigrants, refugees) on the basis of lacing moral imperatives above regulatory prohibitions. This hearkens back to the idea of the Fall being a transgression of a formal prohibition and not a sin against God's eternal moral laws. This issue (regulatory noncompliance) seems to be that kind of transgression and not one of immoral dishonesty.

Complaints about what to do with an organization's pooled money also seems to be a transgression of sorts, abest having a net effect of moral neutrality on the world around us. And what good is that?  

[webbles]

10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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. 

It depends on each state.

For example, in Arizona, they have a legal doctrine of "duty of care".  If you have a "duty of care" over someone and that someone gets hurt, then you are liable.  An example that I found that is not related to sex abuse is a 2007 case called GIPSON v. KASEY.  In that case, a man went to a work party and brought with him alcohol and sleeping pills.  He shared the alcohol with everyone at the party.  One fellow employee (who had her boyfriend with her) asked if she could borrow some of the sleeping pills.  The man gave them to her.  She then gave them to her boyfriend who overdosed on the pills later that night and died.  The dead man's mother sued the first man, saying that he knew the dead man liked taking pills recreationally and he knew that alcohol with sleeping pills was deadly so he had a "duty of care" and should not have given her the pills.  The AZ supreme court ruled that the first man did have a "duty of care" and was liable.  Even though the first man didn't directly give the drugs to the dead man.

 

In most of the cases dealing with the church that I've read about, the reason the church is in the lawsuit is because the bishop, etc is considered an "agent" of the church.  He/She is acting in behalf of the church.  If he/she is acting within the norms of what the church expects and is not going "rogue", then anything they do is considered to have been done by the church.  Managers can also be considered "agents" of their employers and so there are situations where an employee could sue the company because of actions done by a manager.  This has happened a lot with sexual cases and is one of the reasons why most companies now have policies of no relationships between managers and employees.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

It depends on each state.

For example, in Arizona, they have a legal doctrine of "duty of care".  If you have a "duty of care" over someone and that someone gets hurt, then you are liable.  An example that I found that is not related to sex abuse is a 2007 case called GIPSON v. KASEY.  In that case, a man went to a work party and brought with him alcohol and sleeping pills.  He shared the alcohol with everyone at the party.  One fellow employee (who had her boyfriend with her) asked if she could borrow some of the sleeping pills.  The man gave them to her.  She then gave them to her boyfriend who overdosed on the pills later that night and died.  The dead man's mother sued the first man, saying that he knew the dead man liked taking pills recreationally and he knew that alcohol with sleeping pills was deadly so he had a "duty of care" and should not have given her the pills.  The AZ supreme court ruled that the first man did have a "duty of care" and was liable.  Even though the first man didn't directly give the drugs to the dead man.

 

In most of the cases dealing with the church that I've read about, the reason the church is in the lawsuit is because the bishop, etc is considered an "agent" of the church.  He/She is acting in behalf of the church.  If he/she is acting within the norms of what the church expects and is not going "rogue", then anything they do is considered to have been done by the church.  Managers can also be considered "agents" of their employers and so there are situations where an employee could sue the company because of actions done by a manager.  This has happened a lot with sexual cases and is one of the reasons why most companies now have policies of no relationships between managers and employees.

Webbles, thanks once again!

[Pyreaux]

14 hours ago, 2BizE said:

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.

Quit pretending you care whether we have paid missionaries, I'd think you'd still be complaining, if not more so, even then. Aside from oddly thinking any revenue paid in Zimbabwe Dollars could off sets the cost of the traveling expences of a US missionary, supposing it did, here you sound just like a mere Marxist complaining about how the church's surplus value is not fairly distributed amongst its laborers. Maybe you are, I just don't think the values of Marx applies to a religion, no matter how rich, that is willing to make use of volunteer laborers willingly doing so without proper compensation. You undermine a person's sacrifice if you try to argue about its fairness. Instead of Jesus extoling the virtue of the widow and her mite, do you consider it a great crime for the golden rich Temple of Jerusalem to have excepted the widow's mite?

Edited March 15, 2023 by Pyreaux

[2BizE]

5 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Quit pretending you care whether we have paid missionaries, I'd think you'd still be complaining, if not more so, even then. Aside from oddly thinking any revenue paid in Zimbabwe Dollars could off sets the cost of the traveling expences of a US missionary, supposing it did, here you sound just like a mere Marxist complaining about how the church's surplus value is not fairly distributed amongst its laborers. Maybe you are, I just don't think the values of Marx applies to a religion, no matter how rich, that is willing to make use of volunteer laborers willingly doing so without proper compensation. You undermine a person's sacrifice if you try to argue about its fairness. Instead of Jesus extoling the virtue of the widow and her mite, do you consider it a great crime for the golden rich Temple of Jerusalem to have excepted the widow's mite?

I do actually care, but you are perhaps not understanding. I never asked for missionaries to be paid.  What I ask for is that missionaries not have to pay themselves thousands of dollars per month just to be a missionary. The church should cover that expense.

[Pyreaux]

26 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

I do actually care, but you are perhaps not understanding. I never asked for missionaries to be paid.  What I ask for is that missionaries not have to pay themselves thousands of dollars per month just to be a missionary. The church should cover that expense.

But how could you care? Surely, this isn't your only issue with the church? I'm certain if you had to list the top 100 things you didn't like about the church, this wouldn't make the list. So, you care so much for the financial hardships of missionaries, cynical critics like yourself, I'd say, are the cause of most of their true hardships, the sort they care about, in their work. They'd pay that price twice if you all stepped aside because you cared so much about them.

[JAHS]

3 hours ago, 2BizE said:

I do actually care, but you are perhaps not understanding. I never asked for missionaries to be paid.  What I ask for is that missionaries not have to pay themselves thousands of dollars per month just to be a missionary. The church should cover that expense.

If they can't provide the funds the Church does cover the expense through the General missionary fund. Most all wards have such a fund as well to help support missionaries. But if missionaries or their family pays for it they are more likely to work hard at it so it is not wasted.

[Calm]

On 3/14/2023 at 1:55 PM, Hamilton Porter said:

You go after the deep pockets.

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

I will be shocked if we are ever more than a blip on their radar

[Calm]

49 minutes ago, JAHS said:

If they can't provide the funds the Church does cover the expense through the General missionary fund. Most all wards have such a fund as well to help support missionaries. But if missionaries or their family pays for it they are more likely to work hard at it so it is not wasted.

For senior missionaries?

[JAHS]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

For senior missionaries?

No, I was referring to regular young missionaries. But senior missionaries only have to pay up to 1400/month for rent. They can also serve in ways where they can still live in their own home. Most seniors already have some kind of income or resources they can live on while on a mission. 18 year old missionaries do not.