Excellent Jana Riess Article Regarding the 60 Minutes Interview

[Craig Speechly]

So much of the 60 Minutes story was old news but Riess, points out some anomalies in the churches claimed charitable number that I did find of interest.

The church claims that in 2022 it donated over $1 billion to charity.  But Riess breaks that claim down and it seems that the devil is in the details. Rather than a donation of $1.02 billion the truth is closer to $63.9 million after you remove donated labor & fast offerings from the number and only look to cash donations to other known charities.

Note: Nearly $64 million is a tremendous sum and I applaud the church for being this generous.  But when compared to other large charities such as The Bill and Melinda Gates or Warren Buffet Charities, https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeswealthteam/2022/01/19/americas-top-givers-2022-the-25-most-philanthropic-billionaires/?sh=244bb53f3a6c the churches contribution to charities seems rather paltry and embarrassing as it doesn't even crack the top 25 in charitable giving, despite having the largest charitable fund value. According to the churches own math, it has donated about $2.5 billion since 1985. An average of $68 million per year or a little over $4.00 per member per year.

Quote

In a report two years ago, the church wrote that “since 1985, Latter-day Saint Charities and its affiliates have provided over $2.5 billion worth of assistance in 199 countries and territories. This amount does not include the value of volunteer labor, worth many millions of dollars.”

But, in 2021, by its own reporting, the church gave $906 million to charity. In 2022, again by its own reporting, it gave $1.02 billion.

This means that in the past two years the church gave nearly $2 billion to charitable projects, whereas it reported giving $2.5 billion over the previous 35 years put together.

That’s either a) an astonishing and welcome increase over a short period of time; b) an apples-to-oranges comparison because one entity is Latter-day Saint Charities and the other is the church itself; or c) an indication that the church has recently changed the way it counts charitable contributions.

I think it is likely a combination of these factors but with emphasis on the latter.

In the 2022 report, I’m not seeing a repeat of that earlier language about how the amount “does not include the value of volunteer labor.” Rather, it appears that volunteer labor might indeed be quantified in some way to reach that $1.02 billion figure.

For example, the report touts more than 6.3 million hours of service by church members around the world, including donating blood to the Red Cross, serving humanitarian missions, facilitating addiction recovery groups, helping people displaced by natural disasters and teaching language classes to refugees.

It also appears that the church is quantifying its own in-house assistance programs that help members only, such as fast offerings (which members contribute in addition to their tithing), bishops’ storehouses, Family Services counseling and church food programs.

All of these are worthy and wonderful things. But the only monetary donations to outside charities that I see mentioned in the report add up to $63.9 million:

• $32 million to the World Food Program USA.• $5 million to UNICEF.

• $5.1 million to the American Red Cross.

• $16.8 million to Ukrainian relief efforts.

• $5 million for temporary housing for displaced persons in North America.

That’s not to say there weren’t other donations that aren’t mentioned in the report, which is all we have to go on. (Once again, a commitment to complete and regular financial transparency would go a long way here.) But from the report’s own information, it seems that $63.9 million may be the real number, or closer to the real number, of what the church donated in cash to charity.

Donating nearly $64 million to alleviate suffering is fantastic, a step in the right direction. And as the church announced elsewhere, that particular line item of $32 million to combat hunger around the world was its largest-ever one-time donation for humanitarian relief. But it is a far cry from $1 billion in charitable expenditures.

 

 

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2023/05/17/jana-riess-6-things-we-now-know/

Edited May 18, 2023 by Craig Speechly

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

So much of the 60 Minutes story was old news but Riess, points out some anomalies in the churches claimed charitable number that I did find of interest.

The church claims that in 2022 it donated over $1 billion to charity.  But Riess breaks that claim down and it seems that the devil is in the details. Rather than a donation of $1.02 billion the truth is closer to $63.9 million after you remove donated labor & fast offerings from the number and only look to cash donations to other known charities.

Note: Nearly $64 million is a tremendous sum and I applaud the church for being this generous.  But when compared to other large charities such as The Bill and Melinda Gates or Warren Buffet Charities, https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeswealthteam/2022/01/19/americas-top-givers-2022-the-25-most-philanthropic-billionaires/?sh=244bb53f3a6c the churches contribution to charities seems rather poultry and embarrassing as it doesn't even crack the top 25 in charitable giving, despite having the largest charitable fund value. According to the churches own math, it has donated about $2.5 billion since 1985. An average of $68 million per year or a little over $4.00 per member per year.

 

 

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2023/05/17/jana-riess-6-things-we-now-know/

The actual claim is that the church spent 1.02 Billion in expenditures.  And then the church (not Jana Reis, no disrespect intended) breaks that claim down in the link that was provided.  Where is the anomaly? 

[Craig Speechly]

46 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The actual claim is that the church spent 1.02 Billion in expenditures.  And then the church (not Jana Reis, no disrespect intended) breaks that claim down in the link that was provided.  Where is the anomaly? 

I never know where you are coming from Bluebell. But if you are intending to put me in my place by correcting me on the spelling of Riess' last name.  She does spell it R-I-E-S-S see here

As for the claimed $1.02 billion, lumping a monetization of volunteers labor into a number designed to report expenditures is a bit self serving, convenient and somewhat deceptive in that it inflates the actual expenditure, don't you think?

Edited May 18, 2023 by Craig Speechly

[Hamilton Porter]

Jana Riess is cool but she is a gadfly by nature.

[Craig Speechly]

1 minute ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Jana Riess is cool but she is a gadfly by nature.

I just enjoy reading her perspective

[bluebell]

40 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

I never know where you are coming from Bluebell. But if you are intending to put me in my place by correcting me on the spelling of Riess' last name.  She does spell it R-I-E-S-S see here

?

I just misspelled her name.

Quote

As for the claimed $1.02 billion, lumping a monetization of volunteers labor into a number designed to report expenditures is a bit self serving, convenient and somewhat deceptive in that it inflates the actual expenditure, don't you think?

Not really. Not when the organization highlights that it is lumping all that together in the beginning of the report. Even going so far as to put it in larger font and in Bullet points.

Some could argue (and some do) that publishing the report itself is self-serving.  When it comes to this topic, the church seems to be in a lose/lose scenario.

Edited May 18, 2023 by bluebell

[Craig Speechly]

The church claims that: In 2020, LDSC provided funds to 23 agencies to benefit 1,813,072 refugees, internally displaced people, and host community members in 39 countries... See Church charity report 2020.

But that statement exaggerates the impact of the churches donation:

* According to The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development It costs $15,000 to settle a refugee

* If LDSC gave 100% of its 2020 claimed cash donations to aid refugees that would amount to only $25.00 per refugee. A far cry from their claim of aiding 1,813,072 refugees. A truer statement would have been to state that the church funded 0.02% of the full cost to resettle refugees in 2020, but then that wouldn't appear as impressive would it?

This would be an honest disclosure rather than suggesting that they aided 1,813,072 refugee (which is also a true statement) but when provided more information, seems again rather paltry.

The church seems to spin their data to give it it's most positive public relations light.

2020 cash donations to aid refugees, that would only amount to $25-30 per person

 

294 out of 3,611 projects related to refugee support in 2020**, implying ~$3 per claimed refugee beneficiary or 0.02% of full resettlement cost

t costs ~$15,000 to settle a refugee*

 

If LDSC gave 100% of its 2020 cash donations to aid refugees, that would only amount to $25-30 per person

 

294 out of 3,611 projects related to refugee support in 2020**, implying ~$3 per claimed refugee beneficiary or 0.02% of full resettlement costs

 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

The church claims that: In 2020, LDSC provided funds to 23 agencies to benefit 1,813,072 refugees, internally displaced people, and host community members in 39 countries... See Church charity report 2020.

But that statement exaggerates the impact of the churches donation:

* According to The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development It costs $15,000 to settle a refugee

* If LDSC gave 100% of its 2020 claimed cash donations to aid refugees that would amount to only $25.00 per refugee. A far cry from their claim of aiding 1,813,072 refugees. A truer statement would have been to state that the church funded 0.02% of the full cost to resettle refugees in 2020, but then that wouldn't appear as impressive would it?

This would be an honest disclosure rather than suggesting that they aided 1,813,072 refugee (which is also a true statement) but when provided more information, seems again rather paltry.

The church seems to spin their data to give it it's most positive public relations light.

2020 cash donations to aid refugees, that would only amount to $25-30 per person

 

294 out of 3,611 projects related to refugee support in 2020**, implying ~$3 per claimed refugee beneficiary or 0.02% of full resettlement cost

t costs ~$15,000 to settle a refugee*

 

If LDSC gave 100% of its 2020 cash donations to aid refugees, that would only amount to $25-30 per person

 

294 out of 3,611 projects related to refugee support in 2020**, implying ~$3 per claimed refugee beneficiary or 0.02% of full resettlement costs

 

Where did the church say that they gave those funds to agencies which used them to settle refugees?  Is that information available somewhere that I'm not seeing?

[Craig Speechly]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Some could argue (and some do) that publishing the report itself is self-serving.  When it comes to this topic, the church seems to be in a lose/lose scenario.

I don't want to have anyone misinterpret my motivations.  The church does good in this world. But I do agree with you that the church is currently in a lose/lose scenario.  But that is also of their own making.  They have amassed a huge fortune that they claim is for charity.  They are being compared to other charitable organizations of similar size (they're much larger but still)  When compared to these other charities, they're giving is mediocre at best.  That is on the church.  Were they more generous they would no longer be in a lose/lose scenario they would be in a win/win class by themself and heralded as a compassionate giving organization in a class by themselves..

[Craig Speechly]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Where did the church say that they gave those funds to agencies which used them to settle refugees?  Is that information available somewhere that I'm not seeing?

Here

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

Here

The only number of refugees that the link states were settled is 9,000 in the US.  Is there a reason we should assume that benefited should be interpreted as settled?  Because there are a lot of different ways to benefit and support refugee programs without settling them into a new place.  

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

So much of the 60 Minutes story was old news but Riess, points out some anomalies in the churches claimed charitable number that I did find of interest.

The church claims that in 2022 it donated over $1 billion to charity.  But Riess breaks that claim down and it seems that the devil is in the details. Rather than a donation of $1.02 billion the truth is closer to $63.9 million after you remove donated labor & fast offerings from the number and only look to cash donations to other known charities.

Note: Nearly $64 million is a tremendous sum and I applaud the church for being this generous.  But when compared to other large charities such as The Bill and Melinda Gates or Warren Buffet Charities, https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeswealthteam/2022/01/19/americas-top-givers-2022-the-25-most-philanthropic-billionaires/?sh=244bb53f3a6c the churches contribution to charities seems rather paltry and embarrassing as it doesn't even crack the top 25 in charitable giving, despite having the largest charitable fund value. According to the churches own math, it has donated about $2.5 billion since 1985. An average of $68 million per year or a little over $4.00 per member per year.

 

 

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2023/05/17/jana-riess-6-things-we-now-know/

Adjust for the love of money and you have $0. What is wrong with her? 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Craig Speechly said:

I don't want to have anyone misinterpret my motivations.  The church does good in this world. But I do agree with you that the church is currently in a lose/lose scenario.  But that is also of their own making.  They have amassed a huge fortune that they claim is for charity.  They are being compared to other charitable organizations of similar size (they're much larger but still)  When compared to these other charities, they're giving is mediocre at best.  That is on the church.  Were they more generous they would no longer be in a lose/lose scenario they would be in a win/win class by themself and heralded as a compassionate giving organization in a class by themselves..

Your posts ae mediocre and you don't seem to have a problem with that... let them be as happy as you are!

Edited May 18, 2023 by CV75

[Rain]

 

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

The only number of refugees that the link states were settled is 9,000 in the US.  Is there a reason we should assume that benefited should be interpreted as settled?  Because there are a lot of different ways to benefit and support refugee programs without settling them into a new place.  

Quote from article:

Quote

Latter-day Saint Charities provided funds to 23 agencies to benefit more than 1.8 million refugees, internally displaced people and host community members in 39 countries. In the U.S., nearly 9,000 people were supported in resettlement efforts.

Supported in resettlement efforts.  I think it is a huge stretch to imply the church is claiming to resettle the refugees.  

  

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Rain said:

Supported in resettlement efforts.  I think it is a huge stretch to imply the church is claiming to resettle the refugees.  

Especially since the previous sentence is referring to funding other agencies that help refugees.  It would be a shift in action (from supporting to doing) where no shift is indicated.

Edited May 19, 2023 by Calm

[Craig Speechly]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

The only number of refugees that the link states were settled is 9,000 in the US.  Is there a reason we should assume that benefited should be interpreted as settled?  Because there are a lot of different ways to benefit and support refugee programs without settling them into a new place.  

I really don't have time to follow up and fact check for you but...since you're you...I'm going to cut you some slack...I'm guessing you simply misread the paragraph.

Quote

Refugee support

Latter-day Saint Charities provided funds to 23 agencies to benefit more than 1.8 million refugees, internally displaced people and host community members in 39 countries. In the U.S., nearly 9,000 people were supported in resettlement efforts.

 

[Craig Speechly]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

 

Quote from article:

Supported in resettlement efforts.  I think it is a huge stretch to imply the church is claiming to resettle the refugees.  

  

Which is exactly what I stated in my OP

Edited May 18, 2023 by Craig Speechly

[Craig Speechly]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Your posts ae mediocre and you don't seem to have a problem with that... let them be as happy as you are!

"are" mediocre and your welcome to disregard anything I may post now or in the future given you find my posts so underwhelming.

[Wilderland]

From the Church News link:

"Refugee support

Latter-day Saint Charities provided funds to 23 agencies to benefit more than 1.8 million refugees, internally displaced people and host community members in 39 countries. In the U.S., nearly 9,000 people were supported in resettlement efforts."

Nowhere does the article claim the church paid the full $15k to settle each refugee. I'm not sure where your argument comes from. Following this line of thinking:

Many of us have and are donating quite a bit to help various needs in Ukraine. Some of the donations have gone directly to help bring orphans out of various war-torn cities there and deliver them across borders into eastern European countries. If it costs, say, $1000 per child (I really have no idea), and an individual has paid $500, does that individual say he or she has helped bring one half a child to safety, or is helping bring 200 children a week to safety?

Additionally, If LDSC has donated nearly 2000 beds to help with the refugee situation, are they not permitted to include the in-kind cost of those beds? The Cambridge Dictionary defines in-kind: "(of payment) given in the form of goods or services and not money." Who determines what donations do or don't qualify? Detractors are allowed to define the terms of an argument to suit the argument, to the exclusion of the other party. Happens all the time.

In regard to how much the church donates, "The church does good in this world. But I do agree with you that the church is currently in a lose/lose scenario.  But that is also of their own making.  They have amassed a huge fortune that they claim is for charity.  They are being compared to other charitable organizations of similar size (they're much larger but still)  When compared to these other charities, they're giving is mediocre at best.  That is on the church.  Were they more generous they would no longer be in a lose/lose scenario they would be in a win/win class by themself and heralded as a compassionate giving organization in a class by themselves.."

Okaaay. Again, you are trying to define the parameters, and what is charitable. How much is enough? Why? How does who is in the top 25 of donors matter? Again, your parameters. "The church does good, but ..." How much do you donate to charity, Craig? How much do you make? What is your income-to-charity ratio? Is it higher or lower than anyone else? Than mine? Are your donations as valuable and cost-effective as mine? Prove it.

Judas attempted to reprove Jesus for the expensive spikenard used to anoint his feet. "It could have been used for the poor," was his contention, because he tried to define the parameters and appear oh so generous. I reject your parameters.

[CV75]

54 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

"are" mediocre and your welcome to disregard anything I may post now or in the future given you find my posts so underwhelming.

No, I'm OK with mediocre, including myself and Karen (oops)Jana Riess; that is why I commented on yours. Mediocrity is a mediocre standard for criticism, though, as if someone's else's generosity and giving must live up one's personal high standard/imagination to qualify. 

Just for comparison, what is your reputation among your circle for generous giving, and how do you justify knowing what that looks like? Ae you OK with sharing that?

Edited May 18, 2023 by CV75

[Rain]

53 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

Which is exactly what I stated in my OP

Either you are talking about an OP for a different thread or I am blind because I'm not seeing where you stated exactly, or even close to what I said.  The same goes for the post that bluebell was replying to. I would appreciate some guidance to show me where it is in the post if it is there and I'm not seeing it.

[Craig Speechly]

1 hour ago, Wilderland said:

From the Church News link:

"Refugee support

Latter-day Saint Charities provided funds to 23 agencies to benefit more than 1.8 million refugees, internally displaced people and host community members in 39 countries. In the U.S., nearly 9,000 people were supported in resettlement efforts."

Nowhere does the article claim the church paid the full $15k to settle each refugee. I'm not sure where your argument comes from.

Nowhere in my post have I claimed they did. Please reread my OP

1 hour ago, Wilderland said:

 

Following this line of thinking:

Many of us have and are donating quite a bit to help various needs in Ukraine. Some of the donations have gone directly to help bring orphans out of various war-torn cities there and deliver them across borders into eastern European countries. If it costs, say, $1000 per child (I really have no idea), and an individual has paid $500, does that individual say he or she has helped bring one half a child to safety, or is helping bring 200 children a week to safety?

Additionally, If LDSC has donated nearly 2000 beds to help with the refugee situation, are they not permitted to include the in-kind cost of those beds? The Cambridge Dictionary defines in-kind: "(of payment) given in the form of goods or services and not money." Who determines what donations do or don't qualify? Detractors are allowed to define the terms of an argument to suit the argument, to the exclusion of the other party. Happens all the time.

In regard to how much the church donates, "The church does good in this world. But I do agree with you that the church is currently in a lose/lose scenario.  But that is also of their own making.  They have amassed a huge fortune that they claim is for charity.  They are being compared to other charitable organizations of similar size (they're much larger but still)  When compared to these other charities, they're giving is mediocre at best.  That is on the church.  Were they more generous they would no longer be in a lose/lose scenario they would be in a win/win class by themself and heralded as a compassionate giving organization in a class by themselves.."

Okaaay. Again, you are trying to define the parameters, and what is charitable. How much is enough? Why? How does who is in the top 25 of donors matter? Again, your parameters. "The church does good, but ..." How much do you donate to charity, Craig? How much do you make? What is your income-to-charity ratio? Is it higher or lower than anyone else? Than mine? Are your donations as valuable and cost-effective as mine? Prove it.

Classic misdirect, I don’t claim to be a charity nor do I have $150 billion plus at my disposal 

1 hour ago, Wilderland said:

Judas attempted to reprove Jesus for the expensive spikenard used to anoint his feet. "It could have been used for the poor," was his contention, because he tried to define the parameters and appear oh so generous. I reject your parameters.

[Craig Speechly]

40 minutes ago, CV75 said:

No, I'm OK with mediocre, including myself and Karen (oops)Jana Riess; that is why I commented on yours. Mediocrity is a mediocre standard for criticism, though, as if someone's else's generosity and giving must live up one's personal high standard/imagination to qualify. 

Just for comparison, what is your reputation among your circle for generous giving, and how do you justify knowing what that looks like? Ae you OK with sharing that?

Feeling testy I see but why? I haven’t attacked the church I’ve only asked a few questions and pointed out some of the ways they’ve spun their own figures to make their charitable giving look better than it really is once you break it down. I don’t hide behind an anonymous handle. I post here with my very unique name. There is only one person on this earth named Craig Speechly. My donations are not under scrutiny by 60 minutes they are known to me and the IRS. 

[Calm]

31 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

Feeling testy I see but why?

Please (not just Craig) don’t mindread/assume emotions from  content unless someone states they are feeling that emotion.  There is nothing more uninteresting than watching someone’s attempt to attribute feelings that may or may not be there and the follow up denial, *** for tat, etc…all dealing with the personal and not the substance of a critique.  So many words and time wasted on reading these words that have little to do with the actual topic and end up so often a show of oneupmanship (who can annoy the other the hardest, intentionally or not).

Edited May 19, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

There is only one person on this earth named Craig Speechly.

Craig L Speechly or Craig W Speechly?  (See white pages)

Edited May 19, 2023 by Calm