Excellent Jana Riess Article Regarding the 60 Minutes Interview

[Craig Speechly]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

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

I think I’ve been transparent enough.  But I stand by my earlier statement 

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

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.

 

You are so kind. 😂

(i’m not asking you to fact check for me, I’m asking you to support your own statements. But since you’re you I can understand how that could be confusing.  )

[Craig Speechly]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

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.

Quote

For clarification. We agree.  The church has never claimed that they covered the entire costs to resettle refugees. But they did say that they “provided funds to 23 agencies to benefit 1,813,072 refugees, internally displaced people, and host community members in 39 countries” ...and If you were to assume that the entire cash donations went to these 1.8 million refugees that would amount to $35 per person.  
 

but we know that their entire donations didn’t go to “benefit” refugees so in actuality their claimed benefit was far short of the $35 per person. The church is using these numbers to make their donation appear far greater and have a much greater impact than it actually did. (My opinion) 

[Craig Speechly]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You are so kind. 😂

(i’m not asking you to fact check for me, I’m asking you to support your own statements. But since you’re you I can understand how that could be confusing.  )

Eyeroll.  I give up. I’m sorry you misunderstood my comment.  I was trying to say something nice, I said that because I like you, since it was you asking, I’d do it. I thought I was being nice, in a cute way. I was not being snarky or snide.  

sometimes I really tire of this board. So many of us talk past each other without ever really understanding each other. I’m just as guilty as the next guy but try as I might to fit in and share my perspective I can’t break through.  
 

the defensive walls are just too high here.  Our skin is too thin, our persecution complex too inbred and deep. The church can do no wrong, in fact it’s  perfect, hoping for an even more perfect church is silly of me to even want.  
 

Cheers,

Craig

 

 

[Rain]

41 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

For clarification. We agree.  The church has never claimed that they covered the entire costs to resettle refugees. But they did say that they “provided funds to 23 agencies to benefit 1,813,072 refugees, internally displaced people, and host community members in 39 countries” ...and If you were to assume that the entire cash donations went to these 1.8 million refugees that would amount to $35 per person.  
 

but we know that their entire donations didn’t go to “benefit” refugees so in actuality their claimed benefit was far short of the $35 per person. The church is using these numbers to make their donation appear far greater and have a much greater impact than it actually did. (My opinion) 

Let's say you have an organization that helped 100 refugees and the costs varied a great deal from person ($1) to person ($1000). How many people should you report on social media when you are thanking contributors or marketing?

If the church gives your organization $1000 and would like to know how many people that helped what do you tell them? 

I get that you are saying this is a low amount per person and if I had full knowledge of the finances I might even agree with you.  Overall, I'm trying to determine how you would figure out how many are helped given the situation.

[blackstrap]

Perhaps it would have been clearer to say that the 23 agencies that the church gave money to were the ones that helped 1.8 million people, if that is the way it was meant.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

but we know that their entire donations didn’t go to “benefit” refugees so in actuality their claimed benefit was far short of the $35 per person. The church is using these numbers to make their donation appear far greater and have a much greater impact than it actually did. (My opinion) 

Wait, how do we know the bold?

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

Eyeroll.  I give up. I’m sorry you misunderstood my comment.  I was trying to say something nice, I said that because I like you, since it was you asking, I’d do it. I thought I was being nice, in a cute way. I was not being snarky or snide.  

sometimes I really tire of this board. So many of us talk past each other without ever really understanding each other. I’m just as guilty as the next guy but try as I might to fit in and share my perspective I can’t break through.  
 

the defensive walls are just too high here.  Our skin is too thin, our persecution complex too inbred and deep. The church can do no wrong, in fact it’s  perfect, hoping for an even more perfect church is silly of me to even want.  
 

Cheers,

Craig

 

 

Thanks for clarifying and I’m sorry I misunderstood. I wasn’t upset (which I tried to show with the winky emoji) but was trying to respond in a cheeky way to what I thought was an annoyed tone. 

And to clarify a misinterpretation that you are having with my posts, I don’t think the church can do no wrong. I just sincerely don’t understand what you are upset with the church about on this specific issue and I’m trying to figure out what you think the church did and what the church actually did. 

Edited May 19 by bluebell

[Wilderland]

4 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

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

No, but your 4th pose does.

4 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

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

It is not a classic misdirect as it is making a relevant comparison to other donations. You continue trying to set the parameters of your argument, which I still reject.

[CV75]

12 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

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. 

I was feeling humorous. But I'm also interested in exploring how mediocrity is assessed in terms of generous giving, which is a very subjective matter of opinion. Since you made the statement about the mediocrity of the Church in comparison to other organizations ["When compared to these other charities, they're [sic] giving is mediocre at best."] So, when you compare mediocrity and generosity in this area, I am interested in your opinion about yourself; your subjective experience as the basis of comparison. Hence my question about whether you consider yourself, all things considered, to give at a greater-than-mediocre level of charity, as confirmed by your reputation among those who know you.

[Craig Speechly]

10 hours ago, bluebell said:

Thanks for clarifying and I’m sorry I misunderstood. I wasn’t upset (which I tried to show with the winky emoji) but was trying to respond in a cheeky way to what I thought was an annoyed tone. 

And to clarify a misinterpretation that you are having with my posts, I don’t think the church can do no wrong. I just sincerely don’t understand what you are upset with the church about on this specific issue and I’m trying to figure out what you think the church did and what the church actually did. 

My OP’s purpose was to show this community that the church is massaging its numbers to make it appear more altruistic than it really is. Riess’ article exposes some of these anomalies. The church has monetized volunteer labor and added fast offerings donations to their most recent donation disclosures to inflate their giving. Once you look at their true blind giving it’s quite small given the churches vast wealth. I’m ok with what they give, Personally we’re I in charge I’d give more, but to make it appear that they give more than they do is deceiving 

This is the problem with their lack of transparency policy

Edited May 19 by Craig Speechly

[ksfisher]

17 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

The church has monetized volunteer labor

The non-profit that I work for does the same.  The non-profits that are part of the same national organization that we belong to (those that I'm aware of) do the same.  I don't think that this is an uncommon practice.

[Amulek]

23 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

The church claims that in 2022 it donated over $1 billion to charity. 

No, the church reported that $1.02 billion was expended to help those in need.

The church did not report that it donated $1B+ in cash to charity. This feels very much like the beginnings of a straw man argument.

 

Quote

But Riess breaks that claim down and it seems that the devil is in the details.

You mean, the details that were contained within the very same report whose summary page is being mischaracterized?

 

Quote

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.

If you only want to consider cash contributions to secular, third-party charities and humanitarian aid organizations I suppose that's your right - though I'm not sure why fast offering expenditures ought to be excluded from the charitable giving calculation. When indigent Mormons are in need of food, medicine, or a place to stay, I guess that just doesn't count?

Regardless, we're back to the straw man here. The church didn't claim that it made cash contributions to external entities in excess of a given amount - that's a blatant (and, in my opinion, intentional) mischaracterization of what the church actually said. So there's no need to get worked up about "the truth" when it seems as though the truth isn't what is really being sought after in this article.

 

Quote

Note: Nearly $64 million is a tremendous sum and I applaud the church for being this generous. 

Do you really?

 

Quote

But when compared to other large charities such as The Bill and Melinda Gates or Warren Buffet Charities, [...] 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.

You may be surprised to learn this, but the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints isn't a charitable foundation, it is a religious organization whose primary purpose is the advancement of religion.

Could the church be doing more than it is currently with respect to humanitarian aid? People like Jana Riess obviously think so, which is why they write articles like this to try and spur public sentiment around their view. I don't have a problem with that. It's her right. 

Personally, when compared to the billionaire trust fund crowd that you refer to so favorably, I kind of prefer how the church operates. Slow, deliberate, and increasing over time - all without lining anyone's pockets. I'm not saying the Buffets aren't doing good things, but let's get real - a big motivation behind his children having their own multi-million dollar foundations is so he can ensure they are all able to continue living the trust fund / socialite life in perpetuity.

 

Edited May 19 by Amulek

[LoudmouthMormon]

22 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

The church claims that in 2022 it donated over $1 billion to charity.  ... the truth is closer to $63.9 million after you remove ... fast offerings

Fast offerings aren't charity?  What are they then?

Edited May 19 by LoudmouthMormon

[CV75]

6 minutes ago, Amulek said:

No, the church reported that $1.02 billion was expended to help those in need.

The church did not report that it donated $1B+ in cash to charity. This feels very much like the beginnings of a straw man argument.

 

You mean, the details that were contained within the very same report whose summary page is being mischaracterized?

 

If you only want to consider cash contributions to secular, third-party charities and humanitarian aid organizations I suppose that's your right - though I'm not sure why fast offering expenditures ought to be excluded from the charitable giving calculation. When indigent Mormons are in need food, medicine, or a place to stay, I guess that just doesn't count?

Regardless, we're back to the straw man here. The church didn't claim that it made a cash contributions to external entities in excess of a given amount - that's a blatant (and, in my opinion, intentional) mischaracterization of what the church actually said. So there's no need to get worked up about "the truth" when it seems as though the truth isn't what is really being sought after in this article.

 

Do you really?

 

You may be surprised to learn this, but the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints isn't a charitable foundation, it is a religious organization whose primary purpose is the advancement of religion.

Could the church be doing more than it is currently with respect to humanitarian aid? People like Jana Riess obviously think so, which is why they write articles like this to try and spur public sentiment around their view. I don't have a problem with that. It's her right. 

Personally, when compared to the billionaire trust fund crowd you refer to so favorable here, I kind of prefer how the church operates. Slow, deliberate, and increasing over time - all without lining anyone's pockets. I'm saying the Buffets aren't doing good things, but let's get real - a big motivation behind his children all having their own multi-million dollar foundations is so he can ensure they are able to continue living the trust fund / socialite life in perpetuity.

 

Lots of good points here. To a degree, tithing and other donations might well be included since they cover the shortfall when fast offering funds are not sufficient. And many non-members benefit from this giving.

https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/EoM/id/3686/rec/1 (see pp 325-326). "Historically, fast offerings have seldom been sufficient to provide for all the welfare needs of the Church, and shortages have been met from general Church funds." 

 

[Tacenda]

14 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

For clarification. We agree.  The church has never claimed that they covered the entire costs to resettle refugees. But they did say that they “provided funds to 23 agencies to benefit 1,813,072 refugees, internally displaced people, and host community members in 39 countries” ...and If you were to assume that the entire cash donations went to these 1.8 million refugees that would amount to $35 per person.  
 

but we know that their entire donations didn’t go to “benefit” refugees so in actuality their claimed benefit was far short of the $35 per person. The church is using these numbers to make their donation appear far greater and have a much greater impact than it actually did. (My opinion) 

But I have to say, often the church does give credit to the members donating. Or I'd be pretty po'd if they didn't, because that's lame. 

And it's uncanny how much money the church earns on interest or ?. I think I heard in 3 or 4 months it was a little over 1 billion or something. Maybe that's a stock increase. Now I wish I had the quote. Or I may be wrong. It's like the more money you have in savings or invested, the larger the increase. Maybe where the saying goes, the rich get richer. 

So the Ensign Peak account is terrible in that nothing goes out, that should definitely be illegal for it to be tax exempt.

 

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I'm saying the Buffets

Missing a “not” I suspect…  

 

30 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Fast offerings aren't charity?  What are they then?

There are those who see these as coming from members and not the Church, so the Church isn’t technically giving with fast offerings in their view.  However, this is contrary, I believe, to how charities report donations they are given that are then passed on to those in need.  Red Cross isn’t going into their administrators’ wallets to give assistance to “nearly 20,000 people….every day”, but using donations received.  Members donate fast offerings to the Church, not to individuals, and the Church then passes on the offerings through its administration to those needing assistance.  Sounds familiar.

https://www.redcross.org/donations/your-gift-matters/where-it-s-needed-most.html

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

So the Ensign Peak account is terrible in that nothing goes out, that should definitely be illegal for it to be tax exempt.

Unless you know someone who works there now, who is aware of all expenditures and not just some, you stating this as a fact is wrong.

You also don’t know the amount of other church accounts.  If they were close to a billion and now were zeroed out because the account was being closed, even if EPA had gained a billion in a year, there would be no net gain in the Church’s wealth.  Without knowing what is and isn’t in the Church’s total assets, one cannot judge what the real increase in church wealth is.

Edited May 19 by Calm

[Harry T. Clark]

Here again, the church is free to do what it wishes with the funds we give it.  If it only gives back $65 Million per year to outside charitable causes, then so be it.  However, just be a little more open about it.  Include the members a little bit in the plans.  If the plan is that the leaders see trouble ahead and so are in a saving mode, then just let the people know about it.  Exaggerating charitable numbers is a mistake.

[Amulek]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

I'm saying the Buffets

Missing a “not” I suspect…  

Fixed. It was present in my head...just didn't make it onto the page. When are they going to come up with an auto-correct for that!

 

[Vanguard]

12 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said:

Here again, the church is free to do what it wishes with the funds we give it.  If it only gives back $65 Million per year to outside charitable causes, then so be it.  However, just be a little more open about it.  Include the members a little bit in the plans.  If the plan is that the leaders see trouble ahead and so are in a saving mode, then just let the people know about it.  Exaggerating charitable numbers is a mistake.

This. I had always thought when those numbers were reported that indeed it represented actual monies being donated and not some formula to also include the monetary equivalence of the Deacon's quorum spending a Saturday raking Sis. Jones' front yard or some such.  I guess one could call me the buffoon for not realizing how charitable donations are actually calculated. ; ( I wonder if I'm the only one who thought this? Hmmm....

Regardless, this confusion and/or misunderstanding on my part is still largely academic for me. My monies given in tithing/fast offerings are to my God with the Brethren as proxies to do what they will with it. As along as I believe the entirety of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve are ultimately in agreement, then I'm good with whatever. Now, challenge me with a scenario that has them doing 'x' with the funds? I guess I'll cross that bridge when I get to it... ; )  

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Unless you know someone who works there now, who is aware of all expenditures and not just some, you stating this as a fact is wrong.

You also don’t know the amount of other church accounts.  If they were close to a billion and now were zeroed out because the account was being closed, even if EPA had gained a billion in a year, there would be no net gain in the Church’s wealth.  Without knowing what is and isn’t in the Church’s total assets, one cannot judge what the real increase in church wealth is.

I'm sorry, I thought in the 60 minute episode it was said that nothing came out of the Ensign Peak account. I'll go back and look. Just found the comment from Nielsen saying, "Well, once the money went in, it didn't go out".

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Fixed. It was present in my head...just didn't make it onto the page. When are they going to come up with an auto-correct for that!

 

I know!  I am always leaving out or putting in “not” where it shouldn’t be.  Probably my most frequent typo.

[Craig Speechly]

1 hour ago, Harry T. Clark said:

Here again, the church is free to do what it wishes with the funds we give it.  If it only gives back $65 Million per year to outside charitable causes, then so be it.  However, just be a little more open about it.  Include the members a little bit in the plans.  If the plan is that the leaders see trouble ahead and so are in a saving mode, then just let the people know about it.  Exaggerating charitable numbers is a mistake.

Amen

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'm sorry, I thought in the 60 minute episode it was said that nothing came out of the Ensign Peak account. I'll go back and look. Just found the comment from Nielsen saying, "Well, once the money went in, it didn't go out".

Nielsen hasn’t worked there for over 3 years and I am talking about the total amount of the Church’s wealth.  If the Church had unusually high expenditures in other accounts, even if EPA gained in value, over all the Church’s wealth could be less.

Not saying that happened, just saying concluding anything absolute about the Church’s wealth based on an outdated snapshot of one of its companies is foolish and unfair.