Church sued again over how it uses tithing contributions from members

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Bailey Brothers did it maybe the church can too.

Lower prices?

Apartments? But I see way too many of them around our town, as you have most likely. 

Selling them for cheaper could be an option, but how you stop people and investors from buying them up cheap just to flip them for a lot more money?  

[Tacenda]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Selling them for cheaper could be an option, but how you stop people and investors from buying them up cheap just to flip them for a lot more money?  

You make good points bluebell. 

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

You make good points bluebell. 

It's such a complicated problem and I know cities all of the US are trying to figure out a way to deal with it.  It doesn't seem like anyone has found any easy answers.  But renting is still way better than being homeless so thank goodness that option exists.

[blackstrap]

A mortgage is renting money to buy the home. Stop paying the " rent " on the money and you will see who actually " owns " the house. Even after the house is paid for, if you stop paying the " Tax rent " you can lose the place. 

Note: there was a sale on " scare quotes " today. 

Edited November 17, 2023 by blackstrap

[Tacenda]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's such a complicated problem and I know cities all of the US are trying to figure out a way to deal with it.  It doesn't seem like anyone has found any easy answers.  But renting is still way better than being homeless so thank goodness that option exists.

I wonder how we compare with the Catholic church though. Seems they even have homeless shelters. 

https://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/our-vision-and-ministry/affordable-housing/#:~:text=Catholic Charities is one of,over 35%2C000 units already established.

https://www.ncronline.org/news/amid-rising-homelessness-catholic-run-tiny-home-villages-build-more-shelter

https://crosscatholic.org/impact/housing-impact/

https://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/our-vision-and-ministry/affordable-housing/

https://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/get-help-from-catholic-charities/

https://www.covingtoncharities.org/services/housing-services/st-joseph-supportive-housing

https://www.ccsutah.org/programs

I gave up on putting all the links. But I know the church has provided funds for homeless shelters and funds for many other humanitarian efforts. 

[Tacenda]

8 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

A mortgage is renting money to buy the home. Stop paying the " rent " on the money and you will see who actually " owns " the house. Even after the house is paid for, if you stop paying the " Tax rent " you can lose the place. 

Note: there was a sale on " scare quotes " today. 

To the bold, meaning? 

[Rain]

23 hours ago, bluebell said:

So likely 100% of those kinds of donations are used according to purpose probably.

For those who no longer donate to the church because of the whistleblower report, has it been difficult to find other places to donate to that claim 100% of it goes to helping?  I've never tried to look into that but I assume that there are other organizations than just the church that do something similar.  I've looked into some of the well known ones but wasn't impressed with their percentages.  I'd love to know of other organizations that I could also donate to that does as good as the church does on that front.

Just for clarification while answering this - I don't fit who you were asking for.

It is nearly impossible for a charity to have 100% of donations going to helping.  I would think that nearly all if not all of them are very small and done out of the house.

For example, with a charity I am with when it first started the founder got on Facebook and asked for donations which she stored in her garage.  then she used her vehicle and her gas to take those items to where they needed to be.  She soon realized that she could do so much more if she had a warehouse.  I think, initially, the warehouse was donated, but that too became too small.  So she found a much larger warehouse.  Now she had a warehouse payment and had the pay for things like electricity.  However, every year there is a a person who donates for the cost of the warehouse and the utilities.  There are also some other things that need to come out of the budget like printing, buying a moving truck, gas to take large amounts of items places.  Because the charity is 100% volunteer and the founders are very tight with money the percentage used for administrative costs is very low, but still not 100%.

Individual donations can go at 100% though.  People can specify that "this money is for groceries" or "this money is for baby cribs".  I totally get people wanting to do that, but in reality, if everyone does that then the charity wouldn't be able to run.  

Edited November 17, 2023 by Rain

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Note: there was a sale on " scare quotes " today. 

I have never understood why quotes are scary for some people.

They are seen as scary, I think, for those who say stupid things

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I wonder how we compare with the Catholic church though. Seems they even have homeless shelters. 

https://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/our-vision-and-ministry/affordable-housing/#:~:text=Catholic Charities is one of,over 35%2C000 units already established.

https://www.ncronline.org/news/amid-rising-homelessness-catholic-run-tiny-home-villages-build-more-shelter

https://crosscatholic.org/impact/housing-impact/

https://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/our-vision-and-ministry/affordable-housing/

https://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/get-help-from-catholic-charities/

https://www.covingtoncharities.org/services/housing-services/st-joseph-supportive-housing

https://www.ccsutah.org/programs

I gave up on putting all the links. But I know the church has provided funds for homeless shelters and funds for many other humanitarian efforts. 

I know that in Layton our Bishop's Storehouse works with one of the Catholic charities that serves the homeless.  Just because we don't have anyone shelters ourselves doesn't mean that we don't support any.

[Rain]

16 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I wonder how we compare with the Catholic church though. Seems they even have homeless shelters. 

https://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/our-vision-and-ministry/affordable-housing/#:~:text=Catholic Charities is one of,over 35%2C000 units already established.

https://www.ncronline.org/news/amid-rising-homelessness-catholic-run-tiny-home-villages-build-more-shelter

https://crosscatholic.org/impact/housing-impact/

https://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/our-vision-and-ministry/affordable-housing/

https://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/get-help-from-catholic-charities/

https://www.covingtoncharities.org/services/housing-services/st-joseph-supportive-housing

https://www.ccsutah.org/programs

I gave up on putting all the links. But I know the church has provided funds for homeless shelters and funds for many other humanitarian efforts. 

There can be a lot of things to watch out for with a charity - legal rules, insurance, security, government contracts, etc.  The church can go in and spend money on all those things and go through the growing process of starting a charity and also be seen as arrogant for coming in to start what has already been done there or the church can support existing charities through funds and volunteers (JustServe is one of those ways).  It's just more efficient and better when the church supports existing charities instead of creating new ones.  And having been with some of these charities I have found the church often does it pretty quietly. 

Now if there is a need and there is not an existing charity then I think it would be a good thing for the church to start something up and they sometimes do.  

You have often said the church needs to do "more" and I have asked, "how much is 'more'?" The biggest problem with this is we don't have enough financial info to discuss what 'more' would be and if it is doing enough (I'm all for more transparency).  However, I'm excited to see the church is doing more (at least more than we knew before). I'm excited to see that happening in my ward and stake as well - charitable activities were like pulling teeth here for quite a while and I have seen that the attitude of the stake president makes a HUGE difference.  

[blackstrap]

39 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

for those who say stupid things

" Hey " Watch who you call " stupid " !! 🙃

[Tacenda]

16 minutes ago, Rain said:

There can be a lot of things to watch out for with a charity - legal rules, insurance, security, government contracts, etc.  The church can go in and spend money on all those things and go through the growing process of starting a charity and also be seen as arrogant for coming in to start what has already been done there or the church can support existing charities through funds and volunteers (JustServe is one of those ways).  It's just more efficient and better when the church supports existing charities instead of creating new ones.  And having been with some of these charities I have found the church often does it pretty quietly. 

Now if there is a need and there is not an existing charity then I think it would be a good thing for the church to start something up and they sometimes do.  

You have often said the church needs to do "more" and I have asked, "how much is 'more'?" The biggest problem with this is we don't have enough financial info to discuss what 'more' would be and if it is doing enough (I'm all for more transparency).  However, I'm excited to see the church is doing more (at least more than we knew before). I'm excited to see that happening in my ward and stake as well - charitable activities were like pulling teeth here for quite a while and I have seen that the attitude of the stake president makes a HUGE difference.  

That is good to know! How about the budgets in your ward, are members spending their own money for functions? Because it seems a big portion of tithes go back to headquarters. I remember doing that and my husband, paying out of pocket because of ward budgets. Hoping the budgets are better now. Sure members can donate time and money, but sometimes it seems the church doesn't do enough in this instance. But I'm sure, like bluebell and others, I will be set straight. Not meaning in a bad way though. I just feel like no matter what I say or others say, the church will always be given the benefit of always being right. I just don't believe that's the church that was put in place at the beginning of it's existence, I think the consensus of the membership had more say on how money is spent, IMHO. 

[mfbukowski]

33 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

" Hey " Watch who you call " stupid " !! 🙃

It's pretty hard to "watch" them all.

I only see "red" and sometimes "blue". 🤔

[Rain]

45 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

That is good to know! How about the budgets in your ward, are members spending their own money for functions?

I suspect they are. 

For the most part I, personally, stopped doing that because I realized that while I could afford doing that it was hurting people who couldn't do the same.  It could hurt them economically if they were still doing it because they either felt they were expected to or felt uncomfortable doing less than I could.  Then there is the idea of "well Sister rain did it without a budget. Why can't you?" 

Also, I find that what is spent  out of pocket is usually extras.  I mean, we really don't need a chocolate when sister so and so teaches.

So overall I've stopped doing it if I don't have a church budget for it.  I do the ward bulletin now and sometimes I will print a copy to see if it prints out correctly so technically I do spend my own money, but that is negligible and would be a pain to do church funds with it.

45 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Because it seems a big portion of tithes go back to headquarters.

I'm not familiar with this idea. While I've heard the idea of spend it because you'll lose it I always thought that it was used somewhere else in the ward or stake, but that's a total assumption on my part.

45 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I remember doing that and my husband, paying out of pocket because of ward budgets. Hoping the budgets are better now. Sure members can donate time and money, but sometimes it seems the church doesn't do enough in this instance. But I'm sure, like bluebell and others, I will be set straight. Not meaning in a bad way though. I just feel like no matter what I say or others say, the church will always be given the benefit of always being right.

I think sometimes people don't look critically enough because they go into defense mode.  I think others look too critically.  Though it's not really about how much you look critically it's about being open to seeing problems, being willing to see the good and whether you are being adversarial or not.  Too often we (all of us) let our bias cloud what is actually there.

45 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I just don't believe that's the church that was put in place at the beginning of it's existence, I think the consensus of the membership had more say on how money is spent, IMHO. 

I'm totally guessing they probably did have more say for the church overall. Or to put it in church terms - more ability to work with the Lord on how it should be spent. But they also had far fewer members.

And some of the reasons why rules are put into place are because some are not using the money well. 

Don't get me wrong on all of this. I can totally see why you have concerns. I have some myself. I just don't know that I can do anything about it except choosing to keep giving or not

Edited November 17, 2023 by Rain

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I wonder how we compare with the Catholic church though. Seems they even have homeless shelters. 

https://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/our-vision-and-ministry/affordable-housing/#:~:text=Catholic Charities is one of,over 35%2C000 units already established.

https://www.ncronline.org/news/amid-rising-homelessness-catholic-run-tiny-home-villages-build-more-shelter

https://crosscatholic.org/impact/housing-impact/

https://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/our-vision-and-ministry/affordable-housing/

https://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/get-help-from-catholic-charities/

https://www.covingtoncharities.org/services/housing-services/st-joseph-supportive-housing

https://www.ccsutah.org/programs

I gave up on putting all the links. But I know the church has provided funds for homeless shelters and funds for many other humanitarian efforts. 

The Catholic Church has many advantages when it comes to humanitarian work. The biggest is that we are on orders of magnitude larger: more people, more infrastructure, etc. We've also been around for a very long time, so we've got a presence all around the world. Also, we have religious orders who are fully dedicated to humanitarian work. These men and women do not have families, do not have jobs, etc., so they spend their entire time working for the poor. This also applies to our paid clergy, though parish priests have to spend much of their time on the parish, which is why the religious orders are able to do so much more -- they aren't caring for a parish or a family.

So, consider donating to a Catholic charity. The charity watch ratings are high, the financials are transparent, and they serve all regardless of religious affiliation. (I certainly don't mean to donate to a Catholic charity instead of LDS, but if you're looking for a place to give more, it's not a bad choice).

[Tacenda]

10 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

The Catholic Church has many advantages when it comes to humanitarian work. The biggest is that we are on orders of magnitude larger: more people, more infrastructure, etc. We've also been around for a very long time, so we've got a presence all around the world. Also, we have religious orders who are fully dedicated to humanitarian work. These men and women do not have families, do not have jobs, etc., so they spend their entire time working for the poor. This also applies to our paid clergy, though parish priests have to spend much of their time on the parish, which is why the religious orders are able to do so much more -- they aren't caring for a parish or a family.

So, consider donating to a Catholic charity. The charity watch ratings are high, the financials are transparent, and they serve all regardless of religious affiliation. (I certainly don't mean to donate to a Catholic charity instead of LDS, but if you're looking for a place to give more, it's not a bad choice).

I am always looking, thanks and you make good points as well!!

[Rain]

13 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

The Catholic Church has many advantages when it comes to humanitarian work. The biggest is that we are on orders of magnitude larger: more people, more infrastructure, etc. We've also been around for a very long time, so we've got a presence all around the world. Also, we have religious orders who are fully dedicated to humanitarian work. These men and women do not have families, do not have jobs, etc., so they spend their entire time working for the poor. This also applies to our paid clergy, though parish priests have to spend much of their time on the parish, which is why the religious orders are able to do so much more -- they aren't caring for a parish or a family.

So, consider donating to a Catholic charity. The charity watch ratings are high, the financials are transparent, and they serve all regardless of religious affiliation. (I certainly don't mean to donate to a Catholic charity instead of LDS, but if you're looking for a place to give more, it's not a bad choice).

I have been amazed at what Casa Alitas, a Catholic charity, does in Tucson with people crossing the border. One of the things I thought was cool was that the city rents out the building Casa uses incredibly cheaply because by having Casa there the city saves so much more than without it.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

That is good to know! How about the budgets in your ward, are members spending their own money for functions? Because it seems a big portion of tithes go back to headquarters. I remember doing that and my husband, paying out of pocket because of ward budgets. Hoping the budgets are better now. Sure members can donate time and money, but sometimes it seems the church doesn't do enough in this instance. But I'm sure, like bluebell and others, I will be set straight. Not meaning in a bad way though. I just feel like no matter what I say or others say, the church will always be given the benefit of always being right. I just don't believe that's the church that was put in place at the beginning of it's existence, I think the consensus of the membership had more say on how money is spent, IMHO. 

I've spent my own money for things before but that was always either because I was too lazy to turn in the receipts or wanted something that I knew was a stupid use of the ward budget.  At least turning receipts and getting money back is all through the tools app now so that is super easy.  I always turn in my receipts now if I'm going to at all.

I hear what you are saying in regards to always getting a faithful reply to your posts.  Some of that, with me anyways, is probably a function of trying to center the pendulum. 

If I perceive someone as always being critical of the church or always assuming the worst or never willing to give the church the benefit of the doubt then I will often reply to the contrary because it feels "fair" to me to speak for the other side. 

But, I also do that with posters that I perceive as always saying glowing things about the church or never being willing to say anything negative, for the same reasons.  I've been critical of the church before and some of their practices and policies.  And definitely when it comes to parts of it's past.

But overall I will probably always give the church the benefit of the doubt, if not in action at least in intention, because of my personal experience with it.  If you've had experiences that tell you that it's unreasonable to assume good intentions and general good behavior on the part of the church and its leaders then ok.  Our focus will differ on that and that's fine.

 

[Leaf474]

On 11/16/2023 at 3:44 PM, smac97 said:

None.  But we're not talking about "a dollar," are we?  We are talking about billions of them.  Every year.

Figuring out how to responsibly and effectively distribute such vast sums in the nonprofit/humanitarian sector is a very difficult endeavor.  There are "mega-wealthy" billionaires who are eager to give away portions of their vast holdings, but are finding substantial difficulties in doing so.  The Church faces similar challenges.

You and Teancum and Roger and such are not addressing this point in any meaningful way.

Investing in a money-making endeavor (City Creek was only nominally so) in Salt Lake City is vastly different from figuring out how to spend billions every year on hundreds or thousands of separate humanitarian projects in hundreds of areas in many dozens of countries.

You and Teancum and Roger and such are not addressing this point in any meaningful way.

This is a facile and unserious dig, unworthy of a response.

CFR, please.  Why should I believe your unsubstantiated say-so over the word of the Presiding Bishopric?

You are only proving my point about not giving the Church credit for its efforts.  You just shift the goalposts and carry on.  Such are the bitter fruits chewed on by faulfinders.  I'll leave you to it.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

On 11/16/2023 at 3:47 PM, Teancum said:

And essentially this is my point. Though you do a better job outlining it.  For the record:

I don't think the church is a malicious organization.

I don't think top leaders are trying to live high on the hog off donations.

I think the leaders are well intended on the use of the donations  members give them.

I do commend what the church does for humanitarian aid even at the same time believing  they can and should do more based on the very large amount of assets the church controls.

I believe the church has accumulate excessive wealth. At the same time I understand a large organization like the church needs to have reserves enough to maintain itself if donations slow down and decrease due to a variety of factors.  I personally believe the church has reached and far exceeded that number.  A rough estimate is that in the EPA fund, the church has 18-20 times its current annual operating expenses.

I believe that the EPA fund has sufficient assets to maintain the church at minimum, their current level of operating expenses and that they could do this without any future donations.

Based on current levels of assets the church holds in EPA, and based on accepted best practices, the church could increase it work in humanitarian aid to a level that approximates 5% of the funds in EPA.  This would be around $5-$7 billion per year.

I have never advocated that the church simply willy nilly toss and extra $5 billion per year at any organization that might fit the bill of humanitarian aid.  Quite to the contrary I have suggested the church ramp up over time and do it prudently.

I understand managing giving of large sums for humanitarian aid is difficult and fraught with bumps and pitfalls. But I believe the church has access to talent that could do this work. They either work for the church now, or the church could hire them.

So no, I do not advocate for "just throwing money at the problem" nor have I dismissed the challenges of giving. I just am more confident in the church's ability to manage this. And saying this is hard to do is no excuse to not do this.

It seems odd to me that the church that claims to be The Church of Jesus Christ amasses as much wealth as the church has and that it does no do more to relieve human suffering.  Maybe they are moving more in that direction.  It also seems odd to me that so many believing member are quite fine with that along with cheering it and/or vehemently defending it.

 

 

 

 

 

I've read only a few posts on this thread, but this thought came to my mind about giving away big $$$.

 

I wouldn't know where to give a billion dollars, which charity could handle it. But I can find a way to give away $1,000, probably even 10,000.

 

So one answer is to send the excess back to the local wards, and let them distribute it locally.

[Rain]

7 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

 

I've read only a few posts on this thread, but this thought came to my mind about giving away big $$$.

 

I wouldn't know where to give a billion dollars, which charity could handle it. But I can find a way to give away $1,000, probably even 10,000.

 

So one answer is to send the excess back to the local wards, and let them distribute it locally.

It has been my dream for a few years now to be in charge of spending money. To have someone give me the responsibility and he/she lets me travel the world, volunteering here and there to get ideas of where the money could be spent and then giving the person or organization the money on behalf of an anonymous donor. So if you ever get that 1 billion I volunteer to help!

[Leaf474]

23 minutes ago, Rain said:

It has been my dream for a few years now to be in charge of spending money. To have someone give me the responsibility and he/she lets me travel the world, volunteering here and there to get ideas of where the money could be spent and then giving the person or organization the money on behalf of an anonymous donor. So if you ever get that 1 billion I volunteer to help!

I hear that! But even with lower amounts, could you figure out where to give $1,000? Could other people in your ward do the same?

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Leaf474 said:

I hear that! But even with lower amounts, could you figure out where to give $1,000? Could other people in your ward do the same?

I could easily tell you what to do with $1000 or even $10,000.  But I am surrounded by charitable organizations.  $100,000 would be a little harder, but not by much.

Until a few months ago I was ordering groceries for refugees through a refugee organization.  The main thing the organization does is collect household goods from the community and then when a new refugee arrives we have volunteers who would take those items to the new apartment and make the beds, put away the dishes etc.  We also gave them 2 weeks worth of groceries.  Unfortunately, we had to stop the groceries for the moment.   We were doing about $5000 a month at the time.  

Edited November 18, 2023 by Rain

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

 

I've read only a few posts on this thread, but this thought came to my mind about giving away big $$$.

 

I wouldn't know where to give a billion dollars, which charity could handle it. But I can find a way to give away $1,000, probably even 10,000.

 

So one answer is to send the excess back to the local wards, and let them distribute it locally.

That would actually be really cool.  Give the wards some funds and let them decide how to use them.  It would have to be audited pretty well to make sure the money was being used wisely but I don't see why that would be a problem.

[Leaf474]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

I could easily tell you what to do with $1000 or even $10,000.  But I am surrounded by charitable organizations.  $100,000 would be a little harder, but not by much.

Until a few months ago I was ordering groceries for refugees through a refugee organization.  The main thing the organization does is collect household goods from the community and then when a new refugee arrives we have volunteers who would take those items to the new apartment and make the beds, put away the dishes etc.  We also gave them 2 weeks worth of groceries.  Unfortunately, we had to stop the groceries for the moment.   We were doing about $5000 a month at the time.  

Awesome! So for those who are math inclined:

Let's take the 17 million Saints, and assume that about a fifth of them have an active Temple recommend at any given time. (I'm using Temple recommend here because I think we could reasonably assume that they would be considered to be people of good moral character.)

 

So a fifth of 17, well let's go with 3 million.

 

Give each of those three million $1,000, 10,000, whatever they think they could handle to distribute to local charity organizations or just plain homeless people.

 

Repeat that every few months, or whatever seems reasonable for the people involved.

 

I don't think it would go through 100 billion in a year, but it would start making a serious dent. imo.

[Leaf474]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

That would actually be really cool.  Give the wards some funds and let them decide how to use them.  It would have to be audited pretty well to make sure the money was being used wisely but I don't see why that would be a problem.

Right. I'm thinking that if the bishops are considered reliable in the area of helping people manage their spiritual lives, and use their abilities as revelators to help people decide if they're worthy to go to the temple, they should be reliable in finding good local charities.

 

This is a totally different subject, but I heard a person who apparently was an expert at shoplifting to say that it's hard to steal a dozen eggs. But it's not hard to steal one egg a dozen times.

 

So it's hard to give away a billion dollars! But I can think of three nearby food giveaway organizations that could easily use $1,000 and not be overwhelmed by it.