2022 Caring For Those In Need report

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Well no. These pieces were not released until the whistle blower let us know how many $ EPA had and then now, the SEC issue

I have been seeing stuff like this for over ten years at least. 
 

Whistleblower was not the trigger. 
 

And spending has been going up every year since I started paying attention eons ago

Edited March 25, 2023 by Calm

[Nofear]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

I am so, so, so very offended. 

It was completely wrong and it's unfortunate that it was. Though, apparently chatGPT 4 has a access the live web plugin. We'll see if that does better.

[Teancum]

16 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

Or you could maybe reflect on the many Temples, Chapels, and Charities where the Church can have the funds rather than go into debt, like almost every other Church, based on countless studies.

Operating assets of the church are estimated to be around $80 billion. That includes all the items you mention above. If it has $180 billion of non operating assets it has enough to build at least two other Church's without going into debt.  

 

16 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

 

Or not, just pass judgment based on what you think is proper?

It is just my opinion.  

16 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

 

Forget to add, 100,000’s of farm land, and probably 100,000’s in Jackson County and surrounding areas. Also the millions (probably billions) they probably spend to cane for both members, and many times none members,  in food orders, house and car payments, gas bills, etc. When I served in the Bishopric, I wrote hundreds of checks, and co-singed many  mor of those checks. The Church spends multi-Billions every year, let us be thankful they can afford it! If you call it a “drop in a bucket”, it is a very, very large drop, into a smaller bucket. 

I acknowledge all day long that the church is doing good.  But compared to what it had it is a small amount.  It is like someone who has $100k in the bank giving away $555.   If you are interested in this check out this website.

https://widowsmitereport.wordpress.com/

[Teancum]

16 hours ago, webbles said:

The money amount puzzles me.  In the 2020 report, it says "Since 1985, ... provided over $2.5 billion worth of assistance".  The 2021 report says $906 million for the entire year and 2022 says $1.02 billion.  In two years, the church almost doubles what it has done in almost 40 years.  Either the church has massively increased the amount of humanitarian aid or they have started to group other things into the number.  I hope the former but I've a feeling that it is more the later.  Reason for why I feel that way is because the 2021 and 2022 reports mention that fast offerings is included in the numbers.  I don't see any mention of fast offerings in the 2020 report.

Yes the church has increased humanitarian aid the past few years. I recall that the number before recent years was only about $1 billion total for a number of decades but my guess is that number did not include fast offering assistance.

[Teancum]

16 hours ago, bluebell said:

Like I said, I find it ironic how some work so hard to justify complaining about the church.  To the point that they'll even complain when the church is doing good so that they make sure that  no one forgets that complaining is still justified despite the good.

 

And I find it ironic those claiming to be disciple of Christ are not protesting the massive accumulation of wealth their church has.  It is also easy enough to recognize a billion a year goes a long way and commend it while also pointing out that a billion is not a lot compared to what the church has.  As noted it would be like someone who has $100k in the bank giving $555 to charity.

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

I have been seeing stuff like this for over ten years at least. 
 

Whistleblower was not the trigger. 
 

And spending has been going up every year since I started paying attention eons ago

If you had $100k in the bank and gave away $555 would you think it a good idea to publish something about it?

[Tacenda]

52 minutes ago, Teancum said:

If you had $100k in the bank and gave away $555 would you think it a good idea to publish something about it?

Good analogy, especially since most donations appear to be from the members' pockets or volunteerism. But I appreciate what the church does, as it is so very organized and members are most likely to step up to the plate. 

[LoudmouthMormon]

7 hours ago, Teancum said:

As noted it would be like someone who has $100k in the bank giving $555 to charity.

As I progress towards my retirement, my 401k contributions have accumulated this much. And yet I, and millions of Americans like me, don’t really have an extra $555 to give to charity.  My tithing comes out of my paycheck, I don’t touch my retirement, because I’m not retired.

Just another criticism that can’t hold up to 30 seconds of rubbing a few brain cells together.

 What else ya got?

Edited March 25, 2023 by LoudmouthMormon

[bluebell]

7 hours ago, Teancum said:

And I find it ironic those claiming to be disciple of Christ are not protesting the massive accumulation of wealth their church has.  It is also easy enough to recognize a billion a year goes a long way and commend it while also pointing out that a billion is not a lot compared to what the church has.  As noted it would be like someone who has $100k in the bank giving $555 to charity.

Why would a follower of Christ have to protest saving money to not be ironic?  

It is easy enough to recognize the good that a billion dollars a year does and commend it. But some people still can’t manage to do it sometimes.

[Teancum]

19 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

As I progress towards my retirement, my 401k contributions have accumulated this much. And yet I, and millions of Americans like me, don’t really have an extra $555 to give to charity.  My tithing comes out of my paycheck, I don’t touch my retirement, because I’m not retired.

Just another criticism that can’t hold up to 30 seconds of rubbing a few brain cells together.

 What else ya got?

It is an absolute valid comparison.  And a good one.

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, bluebell said:

Why would a follower of Christ have to protest saving money to not be ironic?  

 

Jesus, you know the guy who has not home, was an itinerant preacher and condemned the rich and said to give to the poor.  Nothing wrong with saving.  $180 billion by the Church that claims the be Jesus's?  And all the attempt to defend it and as a giving member not speak out against it?  Yea I find that ironic.

18 hours ago, bluebell said:

It is easy enough to recognize the good that a billion dollars a year does and commend it. But some people still can’t manage to do it sometimes.

It must be hard for you to comprehend my position after stating it quite a few time on this thread.  Is that intentional?

[LoudmouthMormon]

23 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

On 3/25/2023 at 9:23 AM, Teancum said:

As noted it would be like someone who has $100k in the bank giving $555 to charity.

As I progress towards my retirement, my 401k contributions have accumulated this much. And yet I, and millions of Americans like me, don’t really have an extra $555 to give to charity.  My tithing comes out of my paycheck, I don’t touch my retirement, because I’m not retired.

Just another criticism that can’t hold up to 30 seconds of rubbing a few brain cells together.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

It is an absolute valid comparison.  And a good one.

We agree that when you compare the church's charitable giving to someone with $100k in the bank giving $555 to charity, you are making a valid comparison.  I mean, I trust you've done the math.  If you're off some, I'd think the overall comparison would still be valid.

But it sucks as a criticism.  To illustrate why it sucks as a criticism, I presented my own comparison.  I also have $100k in my retirement savings, and yet I give none of it to charity.  I cash flow my charity, paying on every paycheck I receive.  I'm doing right, not wrong.  I'm being a good steward over temporal matters, not a miserly scrooge.  Yes, I could do some good if I were to spend my retirement on charitable things that isn't me and my spouse.  But to do so, at this point in my life, would be almost a sin against my and my wife's future selves.  I intend to use that money at a future time when my income drops drastically and I have no other means of support. (Other than Social security, which is where my analogy breaks down, but I think my analogy is till valid.)

The church is walking it's own talk.  It's saving against future needs.  It's laying up in store against the season.  It's following scripture that talks about such things.  It's following the advice it gives its members.  It's being a wise steward over it's temporal matters.

So yeah, your valid/good comparison sucks as a criticism.  It's a lousy criticism.  Your line of thinking is lousy.  You sought to create a valid comparison to help illustrate why the church is in the wrong here, but all you've done, is created a valid comparison that helped illustrate why the church is doing it right. 

You're probably a top-notch individual and an overall good guy, but your criticism sucks.

[bluebell]

11 hours ago, Teancum said:

 

Jesus, you know the guy who has not home, was an itinerant preacher and condemned the rich and said to give to the poor.  Nothing wrong with saving.  $180 billion by the Church that claims the be Jesus's?  And all the attempt to defend it and as a giving member not speak out against it?  Yea I find that ironic.

 

Usually people who say this kind of thing have to leave out stuff about Jesus to make the analogy work.

Like, how Jesus defended a woman using a very expensive oil on Him when one of His apostles said that she was wrong to waste the money rather than using it to help the poor, teaching that her use of it was the better choice.

There is nothing about Jesus that you can point to that says that there is a limit to how much money is too much money.  

Quote

It must be hard for you to comprehend my position after stating it quite a few time on this thread.  Is that intentional?

It seems like your position is "It doesn't matter how much good the church is doing or who is being helped. No one should speak of it and it is certainly nothing to celebrate, because it's not enough.  No true follower of Christ would EVER celebrate, or even publish, such a thing."

I've been pointing out how flawed that position is in my opinion.

 

 

Edited March 27, 2023 by bluebell

[Teancum]

15 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

We agree that when you compare the church's charitable giving to someone with $100k in the bank giving $555 to charity, you are making a valid comparison.  I mean, I trust you've done the math.  If you're off some, I'd think the overall comparison would still be valid.

Yes.  And another good comparison is Jeff Bezoz giving away $5 million.  Compared to his vast wealth it is not a large %.  It still does good but it is no different than someone with limnited assets in their portfolio giving a few hundred $$.

 

15 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

But it sucks as a criticism. 

Not at all. You just seem unable to comprehend it. Likely due to your need to defend the church at all costs and protect you testimony.

 

 

15 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

 

 

To illustrate why it sucks as a criticism, I presented my own comparison.  I also have $100k in my retirement savings, and yet I give none of it to charity. 

Your flaw here is you compare the Church's $180 billion war chest to your retirement funds.  I would agree a portion of the $180 billion could be viewed this way.  Perhaps 3x the annual operating budget of the church.  so say $20 or even $30 billion.  The rest is simply wealth accumulation.  So your analogy falls apart.

 

15 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

 

I cash flow my charity, paying on every paycheck I receive.  I'm doing right, not wrong.  I'm being a good steward over temporal matters, not a miserly scrooge.  Yes, I could do some good if I were to spend my retirement on charitable things that isn't me and my spouse.  But to do so, at this point in my life, would be almost a sin against my and my wife's future selves.  I intend to use that money at a future time when my income drops drastically and I have no other means of support. (Other than Social security, which is where my analogy breaks down, but I think my analogy is till valid.)

Sure.  This is good for you. But if you had massive discretionary wealth then not so much. You are comparing apples to oranges. Did you say you are an accountant?

Well I am.  I have clients that are charitable annually out of their annual income. I have other clients that have high net worth. For example I have a client selling their business for $200 million.  I big windfall.  They are very charitable. They will give a large sum of this away. Another client a few years ago sold.  He had about $25 million after tax.  He gave $2 million of that away. $2 million of his $25 million war chest.  He is more charitable than the church is in comparison.  And he continues to give substantial amounts away EVERY YEAR. And he is not earning an annual income any more.  This is what you should be comparing it to.

 

15 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

The church is walking it's own talk.

Obviously.  

 

15 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

 

  It's saving against future needs.

It has enough discretionary funds to build 2.5x LDS church organizations. Really how much does it need?  As it is going by 2040 the LDS Church will be worth a trillion $$.  A TRILLION!   Yet they pat themselves on the back for giving away the equivalent of about $555 dollars annually.  

 

15 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

 

  It's laying up in store against the season.  It's following scripture that talks about such things.  It's following the advice it gives its members.  It's being a wise steward over it's temporal matters.

I suggest you read Mosiah 4.  And you and your church, that claims to be Jesus's church might want to read this passage. Seems to fir the church quite well.  And your argument.

 

 

Quote

 

Luke 12:16-21

 

King James Version

 

 

¹⁶ And he spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully:

¹⁷ And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits?

¹⁸ And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods.

¹⁹ And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry.

²⁰ But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?

²¹ So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.

 

 

15 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

So yeah, your valid/good comparison sucks as a criticism. 

\It's a lousy criticism.  Your line of thinking is lousy.  You sought to create a valid comparison to help illustrate why the church is in the wrong here, but all you've done, is created a valid comparison that helped illustrate why the church is doing it right. 

You're probably a top-notch individual and an overall good guy, but your criticism sucks.

No my criticism is spot on. You just do not seem able to comprehend it.  All I have to say to your church leaders is Thou fools!  Soon your soul will be required.  Then whose will that $180 billion be?  You built up earthly treasure while many suffered. You are not rich towards God.

[Tacenda]

I belong to a FB group for the unsheltered (homeless) in order to be of assistance. One person on there was asking about needing help with rent and how that works with the bishop. Some on there said it depends on if there's enough fast offering paid in the ward. But I thought the bishop could still get it from headquarters if the ward didn't cover it. Also, I thought I read on here that the extra funds each month go to headquarters as well. Am I wrong? 

Edited March 27, 2023 by Tacenda

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

Usually people who say this kind of thing have to leave out stuff about Jesus to make the analogy work.

Like, how Jesus defended a woman using a very expensive oil on Him when one of His apostles said that she was wrong to waste the money rather than using it to help the poor, teaching that her use of it was the better choice.

There is nothing about Jesus that you can point to that says that there is a limit to how much money is too much money.  

Yea this is the typical trope that is used to by true believers defend accumulating $180 billion or more of wealth by the church.  Sorry but if you really drill into all the LDS canon on wealth accumulation and what should be done with wealth you simply will have to conclude that the accumulation of massive wealth by the church is really immoral based on what their canon teaches.  And goodness even what they start with in their puff piece!  Try Luke 12:16-21. And Mosiah 4.  And if you really want to drill into it listen to this podcast with David Bokovoy who outlines the scriptural teachings about wealth, being rich and using wealth to ease suffering.

 

 

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

It seems like your position is "It doesn't matter how much good the church is doing or who is being helped. No one should speak of it and it is certainly nothing to celebrate, because it's not enough.  No true follower of Christ would EVER celebrate, or even publish, such a thing."

I've been pointing out how flawed that position is in my opinion.

 

 

My position is I am happy the church is giving a billion a year way to bless the poor. I have long argued that the church's FO and welfare program are to be admired an followed.  I would continue to give to the fast offering funds of the church as well as humanitarian aid but for the clause on the donation slip that they can divert the funds to whatever they wish.  I think FO and local welfare if a ward has a generous and not stingy bishop is one of the best ways to help people in dire need. I thin the humanitarian efforts of the church are very efficient and low cost.  So I would give a lot of my funds that now go elsewhere, to the church, but for that clause on the donation slip. 

So I can applaud what the church does and at the same time make my criticisms.  As for celebrating, that is quite fine.  Celebrate away. But I would recommend to all true believer that they really ought to ponder the moral implication of a church that claims to be the Church of Jesus Christ being one of the most wealthy organizations in the world. Worth more than many of the larges for profit companies.  Worth more than many nations.  If you and other true believers are quite fine with, well yes, that seems ironic to me.  I will use my resources to help fund other causes where I know the $$ will go to help ease human suffering and not help an organization amass wealth that could be upwards of a trillion $ in the next 17 years.  I think my position is the right moral one.

[LoudmouthMormon]

25 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I belong to a FB group for the unsheltered (homeless) in order to be of assistance. One person on there was asking about needing help with rent and how that works with the bishop. Some on there said it depends on if there's enough fast offering paid in the ward. But I thought the bishop could still get it from headquarters if the ward didn't cover it. Also, I thought I read on hers that the extra funds each month go to headquarters as well. Am I wrong? 

Bishops don't need to track fast offering income or expenses at all.  They're free to work 1:1 with individuals and families under the guidelines you can find in the handbook, without a care in the world about how big or small the FO bank account is.  That said, in any given area, there should be a "transient bishop", who is the only bishop in that area that will deal with church aid for homeless folks.  When homeless folks walk into a church and talk to a bishop about church aid, they'll be referred to this bishop.  

Now if folks are in the middle of a move, with a new job or one that starts soon, and there's a hitch in the housing plans that will land them in the ward, that's probably not considered a homeless/transient issue.  And the new bishop from the new home ward (as soon as things settle) can help folks.  My various bishops have had me write countless checks for folks in such situations. 

No matter what the situation or particulars, church aid is meant to be 1-short-term, for 2-members, with the folks receiving aid 3-working or performing service, and a major emphasis on 4-moving towards self-sufficiency.   

Edited March 27, 2023 by LoudmouthMormon

[Teancum]

45 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I belong to a FB group for the unsheltered (homeless) in order to be of assistance. One person on there was asking about needing help with rent and how that works with the bishop. Some on there said it depends on if there's enough fast offering paid in the ward. But I thought the bishop could still get it from headquarters if the ward didn't cover it. Also, I thought I read on hers that the extra funds each month go to headquarters as well. Am I wrong? 

The idea is that a ward should have enough FO contribution to cover their ward's needs.  If they run a deficit then they can get $$ from the stake if it has a surplus. If the stake does not have a surplus then the church covers it.

When I was a bishop my ward constantly ran a deficit.  And it always had even before my time as a bishop.  Our ward had great needs but not a lot of ward member that had a lot to give.  Our stake also usually ran a deficit but our stake had a very wealthy member who had been the president of the stake at one point and he would typically toss in whatever $$ were needed to bring the stake FO funds into balance.  When I was bishop there was a constant pressure to increase FO contribution and to reduce outflows in order to balance things out. This came from my SP at the time.  On the other hand, he and I were flaming liberals I guess and figured the church had enough $$ to cover the outlays.  So we followed President Monson's advice. When it came to assisting those in need if you are going to make an error, make it on the side of generosity.

Edited March 27, 2023 by Teancum

[Tacenda]

50 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The idea is that a ward should have enough FO contribution to cover their ward's needs.  If they run a deficit then they can get $$ from the stake if it has a surplus. If the stake does not have a surplus then the church covers it.

When I was a bishop my ward constantly ran a deficit.  And it always had even before my time as a bishop.  Our ward had great needs but not a lot of ward member that had a lot to give.  Our stake also usually ran a deficit but our stake had a very wealthy member who had been the president of the stake at one point and he would typically toss in whatever $$ were needed to bring the stake FO funds into balance.  When I was bishop there was a constant pressure to increase FO contribution and to reduce outflows in order to balance things out. This came from my SP at the time.  On the other hand, he and I were flaming liberals I guess and figured the church had enough $$ to cover the outlays.  So we followed President Monson's advice. When it came to assisting those in need if you are going to make an error, make it on the side of generosity.

 

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Bishops don't need to track fast offering income or expenses at all.  They're free to work 1:1 with individuals and families under the guidelines you can find in the handbook, without a care in the world about how big or small the FO bank account is.  That said, in any given area, there should be a "transient bishop", who is the only bishop in that area that will deal with church aid for homeless folks.  When homeless folks walk into a church and talk to a bishop about church aid, they'll be referred to this bishop.  

Now if folks are in the middle of a move, with a new job or one that starts soon, and there's a hitch in the housing plans that will land them in the ward, that's probably not considered a homeless/transient issue.  And the new bishop from the new home ward (as soon as things settle) can help folks.  My various bishops have had me write countless checks for folks in such situations. 

No matter what the situation or particulars, church aid is meant to be 1-short-term, for 2-members, with the folks receiving aid 3-working or performing service, and a major emphasis on 4-moving towards self-sufficiency.   

Thanks to the both of you!

[Tacenda]

Question, does excess fast offerings per month go to headquarters? I might have read wrong on this.

[Teancum]

24 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Bishops don't need to track fast offering income or expenses at all. 

Yes they do. Have you ever been a bishop?

 

24 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

 

 

They're free to work 1:1 with individuals and families under the guidelines you can find in the handbook, without a care in the world about how big or small the FO bank account is. 

Wrong.  At least when I was a bishop from 2003 to 2009.  We were expected to at least try to manage our FO outlay to what we brought in. Our SP would discuss it in the monthly bishop meetings we had.

24 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

 

That said, in any given area, there should be a "transient bishop", who is the only bishop in that area that will deal with church aid for homeless folks.  When homeless folks walk into a church and talk to a bishop about church aid, they'll be referred to this bishop.  

Yep. I did that as well.

24 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Now if folks are in the middle of a move, with a new job or one that starts soon, and there's a hitch in the housing plans that will land them in the ward, that's probably not considered a homeless/transient issue.  And the new bishop from the new home ward (as soon as things settle) can help folks.  My various bishops have had me write countless checks for folks in such situations. 

No matter what the situation or particulars, church aid is meant to be 1-short-term, for 2-members, with the folks receiving aid 3-working or performing service, and a major emphasis on 4-moving towards self-sufficiency.   

 

[bluebell]

12 hours ago, Teancum said:

 think my position is the right moral one.

I know. Others disagree.

From my perspective, being upset that the church published this information, and implying that no true Christian would find it acceptable that they did so, is not a moral position.

(And in case it’s been forgotten since it’s been a long conversation, I’m referring to the first comment of yours that I replied to, and your comments previous to that one). 

[LoudmouthMormon]

22 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Question, does excess fast offerings per month go to headquarters? I might have read wrong on this.

Yep.  Same with other categories like tithing and general missionary.  Bishops and finance clerks see this:

 

22 hours ago, Teancum said:

23 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Bishops don't need to track fast offering income or expenses at all. 

Yes they do. Have you ever been a bishop?

23 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

They're free to work 1:1 with individuals and families under the guidelines you can find in the handbook, without a care in the world about how big or small the FO bank account is. 

Wrong.  At least when I was a bishop from 2003 to 2009.  We were expected to at least try to manage our FO outlay to what we brought in. Our SP would discuss it in the monthly bishop meetings we had.

 

I've been a finance clerk for 5 bishops now - with three of them counseling with me closely about such things.  The ones who tell me, say they go over individual family situations, and sometimes get urging from the SP to focus on getting some folks self-sufficient, but that's it.

I do live in a ward with some amazingly generous folks, we're absolutely a net exporter of fast offerings.  Perhaps that's the difference in my and @Teancum's experiences.

[rodheadlee]

I get so irate reading the news these days I thought I would check in and get some good news. Thanks for ruining that Teancum. They could give away 170 billion and have 1 billion left and you could you would complain.

 

[Teancum]

56 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

I get so irate reading the news these days I thought I would check in and get some good news. Thanks for ruining that Teancum. They could give away 170 billion and have 1 billion left and you could you would complain.

 

Nice ad hominem rodheadlee.  But you are certainly wrong.  As an alleged disciple of Christ I would think your church accumulating $180 billion of non operating assets might hurt your sensibilities.  But cognitive dissonance is a tough thing to deal with.  It takes courage.  Try not to cry in your cheerios to much.  If you have anything of substances to offer feel free to do so.

Edited March 30, 2023 by Teancum