Church sued again over how it uses tithing contributions from members

[CV75]

16 minutes ago, Rain said:

I don't feel the same way about this.  I realize you saw a connection with what I said and I appreciate you trying to connect (I do! Thank you!), but the way you are describing this is not the way I feel. Maybe you were just saying this is how you handle the situations and if that's all you were saying I apologize, but if you were saying our reasoning was pretty much the same I don't really feel that way.  I see the reasoning quite different, but I can't second guess your heart and inspiration when it doesn't match mine.

Yes, I am saying these scriptures help me handle the situations I come across by reflecting on what it means to "perish." Sometimes I feel prompted to give to a panhandler anyway, and sometimes I do not. I am more willing to give without thinking about it to those closer to me (though sometimes in retrospect I realize perhaps it wasn't all that necessary, but other times quite serendipitous or best-case, inspired), and to formal causes that do a better job than I can as an individual (this includes volunteering in soup kitchens, food pantries, disaster cleanup and the like). I feel both obligated and most willing to give to the Church's Fast Offering and Humanitarian Aid. The scriptures I shared helped me cultivate charity and discernment rather than judgment or condemnation, perhaps much like your experience with your brother has done for you.

[Leaf474]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

Mosiah 4: 16 - 22 has helped me gain some perspective on my personal decisions to give individually and personally to those in need:

"And also, ye yourselves will ^asuccor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the ^bbeggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish... And if ye ^ajudge the man who putteth up his petition to you for your substance that he perish not, and condemn him..."

I have extremely rarely come cross a panhandler who is on the verge of perishing.

So, I do not believe there is a hard and fast commandment to give of our means to the beggar, period. While we are free and encouraged to give as liberally as we can and tend to follow this counsel more with friends, family and the Church than with those we pass on the street whom we do not know, we are only commanded to administer to those who are immediately faced with destruction. These other forms of giving are more in line with building self-reliance, the community of saints and Zion than rescuing someone from immediate danger and harm, including organized humanitarian efforts. Most panhandlers and homeless are uniquely self-sufficient in their own way, impairments and afflictions notwithstanding.

Similarly, Alma 34: 27-29 uses the term "turn away" as an unworthy response to "those in need" around us. This means familiarity and proximity. These are typically not on the verge of perishing, and so seeking them out (humanitarian aid and self-reliance efforts, "in wisdom and order" -- Mosiah 4:27) and welcoming them into the fold (pragmatic missionary work, in wisdom and order) is the best approach to care for them and help them realize a more favorable condition:

Yea, and when you do not cry unto the Lord, let your ^ahearts be ^bfull, drawn out in prayer unto him continually for your ^cwelfare, and also for the welfare of ^dthose who are around you. And now behold, my beloved brethren, I say unto you, do not suppose that this is all; for after ye have done all these things, if ye ^aturn away the ^bneedy, and the ^cnaked, and visit not the sick and afflicted, and ^dimpart of your substance, if ye have, to those who stand in need—I say unto you, if ye do not any of these things, behold, your ^eprayer is ^fvain, and availeth you nothing, and ye are as ^ghypocrites who do deny the faith. Therefore, if ye do not remember to be ^acharitable, ye are as dross, which the refiners do cast out, (it being of no worth) and is trodden under foot of men.

 

Those are interesting passages ❤️ They remind me of this from 1 John 3

By this we know love, because he laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers. 17 But whoever has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, then closes his heart of compassion against him, how does God’s love remain in him? 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Buckeye said:

Just a call to join the ward YW presidency. 

Because she is hip.  

[Rain]

17 hours ago, CV75 said:

Yes, I am saying these scriptures help me handle the situations I come across by reflecting on what it means to "perish." Sometimes I feel prompted to give to a panhandler anyway, and sometimes I do not. I am more willing to give without thinking about it to those closer to me (though sometimes in retrospect I realize perhaps it wasn't all that necessary, but other times quite serendipitous or best-case, inspired), and to formal causes that do a better job than I can as an individual (this includes volunteering in soup kitchens, food pantries, disaster cleanup and the like). I feel both obligated and most willing to give to the Church's Fast Offering and Humanitarian Aid. The scriptures I shared helped me cultivate charity and discernment rather than judgment or condemnation, perhaps much like your experience with your brother has done for you.

I love there are so many ways we can learn to love others.  That sometimes we learn through scriptures. And sometimes other people.  Sometimes books. Sometimes nature. Love the things that help us to feel kinship with others as Jesus felt with the poor and the sick and those on the margins. Little by little, in so many different ways, God puts us on the path to unity 

[edvantageous]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

I love there are so many ways we can learn to love others.  That sometimes we learn through scriptures. And sometimes other people.  Sometimes books. Sometimes nature. Love the things that help us to feel kinship with others as Jesus felt with the poor and the sick and those on the margins. Little by little, in so many different ways, God puts us on the path to unity 

I love this thought. Thanks for sharing it!

[smac97]

On 11/18/2023 at 7:37 AM, 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.

Aye, there's the rub.  My sense is that there is far more money available for humanitarian efforts (both from the Church and from other sources) than there are reputable and competent charitable organizations capable of receiving and prudently utilizing such funds.

On 11/18/2023 at 7:37 AM, Leaf474 said:

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 sounds nice.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Aye, there's the rub.  My sense is that there is far more money available for humanitarian efforts (both from the Church and from other sources) than there are reputable and competent charitable organizations capable of receiving and prudently utilizing such funds.

By that standard, do you think Latter-day Saint Charities is a reputable, competent charitable organization that is capable of receiving and prudently utilizing more money than it currently receives? If it is, why doesn't Ensign Peak Advisors donate more to it? If it isn't, why does it solicit donations?

[smac97]

On 11/16/2023 at 8:06 PM, Calm said:

I don’t think Smac would intentionally lie, if only because it is so easy to determine how accurate his description is by reading posts here. I do agree it is a misrepresentation, I just don’t think it is intentional because that imo would be foolish and I don’t see Smac that way.  I do see him as possibly being so fixated on an idea he hasn’t adjusted his thinking when given new info.  I have done that myself so I know it is even possible for very smart people to do this.  

The proposal is to for the Church to give away 5% of its reserve funds every year.  That is the benchmark.  Billions and billions of dollars flowing . . . somewhere.  Every year.  Teancum can't or won't say where.  He just makes broad declarations about the Church hiring "smart people" to do this.  

I think it is facile and unreasonable to bandy about proposals involving the disposition of many billions of dollars on an annualized basis with no coherent explanation of where the money would actually go, or what the Church should do if it cannot find appropriate "vectors" for such humanitarian giving.

I think the Church really is interested in helping in humanitarian efforts, but it is substantially limited in finding effective "vectors" for such help, difficulties which "mega-wealthy" billionaires are likewise facing.  I think Roger and Teancum are refusing to address this because conceding this point would inexorably lead to the question of what should the Church do if it can't find such vectors, and the answer would be . . . what the Church is doing now.  Can't have that.

On 11/16/2023 at 8:06 PM, Calm said:

Imo, they are clear they are all assuming from what they have said that the Church is highly capable in finding worthwhile projects that won’t backfire (evidence being current projects) and therefore spending even 5% prudently would feasible for the Church to achieve. 

I have no idea what this means.  Who has been "clear?"  About what?  What evidence has Teancum adduced for the proposition that the Church can do this, but it simply choosing not to?  What evidence has he adduced to negate or rebut the various statements from various GAs (particularly from the Presiding Bishopric) about the difficulties in vetting and coordinating with other charitable organizations?  

On 11/16/2023 at 8:06 PM, Calm said:

Smac appears to see that as much more difficult than Teancum, etc. do,

Yes.  And unlike Teancum, I have provided a number of references to substantiate my argument.  The various quotes from the Presiding Bishopric.  Various links to systemic corruption and mismanagement in the nonprofit sector.  The mess in California's billions spent on "homelessness" as an example of fixating on spending to the detriment of effectiveness.  The article about "mega-wealthy" billionaires struggling to find ways to fund philanthropic/humanitarian efforts in prudent and effective ways.

Teancum has nothing but vague suggestions about the Church "set{ting} up a group of smart people" and "find{ing} the talent needed to accomplish such things in a proper and helpful way."  

On 11/16/2023 at 8:06 PM, Calm said:

but even if he is right about the difficulty level their opinion that it isn’t that difficult to do does not translate to mean they think being prudent about charity shouldn’t be done and to present it as if it does is a misrepresentation, imo.  

Yes, it does.  The centerpiece of their proposal is not about the effectiveness of the Church's humanitarian efforts, but in the spending.  And spending is not based on the competency/effectiveness of recipients of the funds, but on a percentage of the Church's reserves, amounting to many billions of dollars.  Every year.

By way of analogy, compare the "5% of the Church's reserve funds" proposal to this scene from I Love Lucy:

Lucy and Ethel were being tasked with wrapping far more chocolates than they can handle.  Not because they are evil or greedy or stupid, but because there are too many chocolates.  That's the gag.  The chocolates just keep coming, and Lucy and Ethel can't keep up.

This is how I see Roger and Teancum's 5% proposal.  First and foremost, there is the 5% figure.  Billions and billions of dollars, every single year.  That's the benchmark that must be met.  I think the Church, like many other groups and individuals looking to help in philanthropic and humanitarian ways, are facing substantial difficulty in finding enough partners with which it can work.  

I have repeatedly pointed to the profound dysfunction and profligate waste of untold billions of dollars California has spent on "homelessness" by using the same sort of reflexive, facile, feckless "Just Throw Money At It!" approach that underlies the 5% proposal.  I don't want the Church to simulate California's profoundly misguided approach to such things.

I have also repeatedly pointed to the efforts by the Church to carefully evaluate and "vet" any such organization prior to working with or donating to them.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Quote

In addition to responding to disasters across the globe, Church humanitarian funds have been used to provide food programs, vision care, maternal and newborn care, clean water and sanitation, immunizations, wheelchairs, and help for refugees.

However, reaching out and helping those in need is “a very complex endeavor,” he said.

The Church can’t just send out cash and checks to people, he said. “It has to be done in an organized way, and with follow up, with training, a lot of expertise and good partners. Otherwise, you just don’t get any results.”

Bishop Davies said the Church is careful to select humanitarian projects and partners that will make the best use of the Church’s funds. “We are very careful with the widow’s mite,” referring to the biblical parable by the Savior.

“We recognize that this comes from the faith of Church members and we want to make certain that they have the trust and confidence that their donations are being managed in a careful and thoughtful and very safe way for them and for the Church,” said Bishop Davies.

Leaders often ask themselves “what else can we do, where else can we go, who else can we work with,” said Bishop Waddell.  

Every time the Church reaches out, the objective is to bless both the giver and the receiver, added Bishop Caussé. So in addition to selecting good humanitarian projects, Church leaders are always mindful of providing service opportunities for Church members. “It’s not just a matter of money,” he said. It’s also done as members “devote time and resources and efforts to help others.”
...
As to the question, is the Church doing enough, Bishop Caussé said, “We hope we can do more and more in the future, and as the Church grows, there will be more opportunities for doing good.”

...

See also here:

Quote

“The people who say we’re not doing our part, that is just not true,” Bishop Waddell said. “We’re talking close to $1 billion in that welfare/humanitarian area on an annual basis. Yes, we are using our resources to bless the poor and the needy as well as all of the other responsibilities we have as a church.”

The figure includes all humanitarian and welfare expenditures, including fast offering aid.

The budget for humanitarian work “has gone up dramatically,” Bishop Waddell said.

In fact, Bishop Caussé added, humanitarian expenditures have doubled in the past five years.

“And we believe they are going to increase fast,” he said.

Increases in humanitarian and welfare spending are driven first by the contributions and volunteerism of church members, the bishops said. The other major factor is how quickly the church can ensure new avenues for precise giving. For example, Latter-day Saint Charities carefully and thoroughly assesses each partner. “The last thing you want to do is just give them money and then you really don’t know where it goes,” Bishop Davies said. “So we have both missionaries and area staff on the ground, feet on the ground, who actually are there, they can see that food’s being distributed, or equipment, or schools are being built as part of our program.”

 

• "Latter-day Saint Charities carefully and thoroughly assesses each partner. 'The last thing you want to do is just give them money and then you really don’t know where it goes,' Bishop Davies said. 'So we have both missionaries and area staff on the ground, feet on the ground, who actually are there, they can see that food’s being distributed, or equipment, or schools are being built as part of our program.'"
• "Reaching out and helping those in need is 'a very complex endeavor.'"
• "The Church can’t just send out cash and checks to people, he said. 'It has to be done in an organized way, and with follow up, with training, a lot of expertise and good partners. Otherwise, you just don’t get any results.'"
• "Bishop Davies said the Church is careful to select humanitarian projects and partners that will make the best use of the Church’s funds. 'We are very careful with the widow’s mite.'"
• "We recognize that this comes from the faith of Church members and we want to make certain that they have the trust and confidence that their donations are being managed in a careful and thoughtful and very safe way for them and for the Church."
• “We hope we can do more and more in the future, and as the Church grows, there will be more opportunities for doing good.”
• The other major factor is how quickly the church can ensure new avenues for precise giving. For example, Latter-day Saint Charities carefully and thoroughly assesses each partner. “The last thing you want to do is just give them money and then you really don’t know where it goes,” Bishop Davies said. “So we have both missionaries and area staff on the ground, feet on the ground, who actually are there, they can see that food’s being distributed, or equipment, or schools are being built as part of our program.”

Roger and Teancum are not addressing this.  They are, instead, publicly declaring that the Church is "miserly," that helping our fellow man is "pretty low" on our list of priorities, that all the Church needs to do is hire "smart people" to administer these many billions every year but (apparently) that it simply chooses not to.

I think the Presiding Bishopric is far better situated to speak intelligently about what the Church is doing, and why, and what challenges it is facing, etc., as compared to Roger and Teancum.

On 11/16/2023 at 8:06 PM, Calm said:

Perhaps Smac thinks that taking the level of care they are suggesting amounts to throwing money at it..if so, if he wants to debate that, that they are wrong in their assessment he should do so rather than rewrite what they are saying based on his assumptions rather than their own.

I think I've been pretty clear that "Just Throw Money At it!"  is my characterization of the 5% proposal.  If Roger and Teancum have subsequently qualified their proposal with conditions and caveats, then we may be closer to agreement than anticipated.  As it is, though, the 5% number appears unchanged.  In Teancum's view, the spending of many billions every year is just a matter of the Church choosing to hire "smart people."  I think the Church already has smart people working on this.  From above:

Quote

The other major factor is how quickly the church can ensure new avenues for precise giving. For example, Latter-day Saint Charities carefully and thoroughly assesses each partner. “The last thing you want to do is just give them money and then you really don’t know where it goes,” Bishop Davies said. “So we have both missionaries and area staff on the ground, feet on the ground, who actually are there, they can see that food’s being distributed, or equipment, or schools are being built as part of our program.”

Above you suggest I am "fixated."  I think it is Roger and Teancum who have succumbed to that.  They have thrown out a high-minded but also highly naive and facile, proposal for the Church to spend a fixed amount of its reserves, amounting to many billions of dollars, every year.  This, they declare confidently, is simply a matter of the Church "set{ting} up a group of smart people" and "find{ing} the talent needed to accomplish such things in a proper and helpful way."  Well, the Presiding Bishopric has given plenty of contrary indications about these logistical difficulties, and I find them more credible and percipient.

Still, the 5% proposal rolls forward, with no substantive provisos or considerations for the effectiveness/efficiency of the spending. 

On 11/16/2023 at 8:06 PM, Calm said:

Now perhaps this rewriting is not Smac’s intent, but it is how I interpret his repetition of the claim they are saying the Church should throw money at it.  They are not.  

I think they are.  Teancum is contradicting the Presiding Bishopric.  The PB is saying that administering hundreds of millions, or billions, in humanitarian efforts is quite difficult.  Teancum is saying otherwise, that the Church can be "set{ting} up a group of smart people" and "find{ing} the talent needed to accomplish such things in a proper and helpful way," but that it is affirmatively choosing not to because, in his words, "reliving human suffering is pretty low on the {the Church's} list."

I choose to lend more credence to the published statements of the Presiding Bishopric over the hostile and facile and evidence-free assertions of critics such as Teancum.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 20, 2023 by smac97

[Thinking]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

'The last thing you want to do is just give them money and then you really don’t know where it goes,'

Yet this is what tithe paying members do. Isn't it ironic?

[Analytics]

51 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The proposal is to for the Church to give away 5% of its reserve funds every year.  That is the benchmark.  Billions and billions of dollars flowing . . . somewhere.  Every year.  Teancum can't or won't say where.  He just makes broad declarations about the Church hiring "smart people" to do this.  

I think it is facile and unreasonable to bandy about proposals involving the disposition of many billions of dollars on an annualized basis with no coherent explanation of where the money would actually go, or what the Church should do if it cannot find appropriate "vectors" for such humanitarian giving.

I think the Church really is interested in helping in humanitarian efforts, but it is substantially limited in finding effective "vectors" for such help, difficulties which "mega-wealthy" billionaires are likewise facing.  I think Roger and Teancum are refusing to address this because conceding this point would inexorably lead to the question of what should the Church do if it can't find such vectors, and the answer would be . . . what the Church is doing now.  Can't have that.

I am not refusing to address this.

For example, a couple of weeks ago in this very thread I said:

"The Church makes way more annual income than it can deploy responsibly. And the size of its annual income is growing exponentially, while its ability to responsibly deploy resources is not. That is the problem."

And on January 11, in a post you linked to last Friday in a personal attack on me, I said:

Quote

One very good point the Aaron Miller article makes is this:

And here’s the paradox likely unknown to most people: giving money away effectively is generally much harder than earning it. The problem is that people assume that all giving is good giving when that is not remotely true.

I completely agree with that, and it gets to the very heart of my actual point. Including tithing and investment income, the Church only spends about 40% of its total income on "effective humanitarian objectives," including religious ones. It uses the remaining 60% of its total income to expand its business empire and grow its stock portfolio. But exponentially increasing the Church's ability to generate income it doesn't know how to spend makes the problem exponentially worse, not better.

The Church shouldn't give a million dollars to every go-fund-me campaign until it runs out of money. Of course it shouldn't. But it shouldn't hoard money either.

 

51 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Still, the 5% proposal rolls forward, with no substantive provisos or considerations for the effectiveness/efficiency of the spending. 

Last week you made these same false accusations about what I believe, and I said:

For the record, you are profoundly misunderstanding and misrepresenting my position. It’s clear to me that you don’t want to understand it either, so I won’t bother explaining how the straw man you are attacking here has nothing to do with what I’ve said or with what I believe. And that is okay.

You then said no, you really were interested in understanding my position. Taking you at your word, I decided to explain where I'm coming from and I said:

I never believed, said, or thought that the Church or anybody else should ever donate a single penny "with no regard for or consideration of the actual efficacy of such disbursements, or the competency and integrity of the recipients of such funds." That is totally made up.

In fact, I believe the opposite: every individual and every institution should be conscientious and diligent with their donations to be sure that they will be put to good use.

And that is why organizations that receive donations ought to be transparent: they need to be transparent to allow donors to perform their due diligence when making decisions about how to donate.

I hope you see the irony here. If somebody wants to donate to the Church, they're certainly donating to an organization with high integrity, and the money won't be used to support opulent lifestyles of Church leaders. Of course. But on the margin, it won't be used to support the Church's  religious, educational, or charitable missions, either. Rather, it will be used to buy stocks and bonds to be saved for a hypothetical rainy day. I agree that the worlds problems won't be solved by just throwing money at it. But they won't be solved by donating money to Ensign Peak Advisor's stock and bond portfolio, either.

And that is the real issue that is in our respective circles of control. On this narrow issue we agree about what the Church should do (i.e. only donate to organizations that will put the money to good use). Should individuals follow that same advice? If so, they shouldn't donate it to the Church.

I wasn't addressing the question of how organizations should spend money. I was addressing the question of what's the proper balance between saving and spending. Those are two totally different issues. Just because Harvard University endeavors to distribute 5.5% of their endowment every year doesn't mean that they subscribe to your imaginary  "just throw money at it" philosophy and think the 5.5% distributions should be made "with no regard for or consideration of the actual efficacy of such disbursements, or the competency and integrity of the recipients of such funds."

Please stop misrepresenting my position. It is dishonest. 

Edited November 20, 2023 by Analytics

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I have also repeatedly pointed to the efforts by the Church to carefully evaluate and "vet" any such organization prior to working with or donating to them.  See, e.g., here:

• "Latter-day Saint Charities carefully and thoroughly assesses each partner. 'The last thing you want to do is just give them money and then you really don’t know where it goes,' Bishop Davies said. 'So we have both missionaries and area staff on the ground, feet on the ground, who actually are there, they can see that food’s being distributed, or equipment, or schools are being built as part of our program.'"
• "Reaching out and helping those in need is 'a very complex endeavor.'"
• "The Church can’t just send out cash and checks to people, he said. 'It has to be done in an organized way, and with follow up, with training, a lot of expertise and good partners. Otherwise, you just don’t get any results.'"
• "Bishop Davies said the Church is careful to select humanitarian projects and partners that will make the best use of the Church’s funds. 'We are very careful with the widow’s mite.'"
• "We recognize that this comes from the faith of Church members and we want to make certain that they have the trust and confidence that their donations are being managed in a careful and thoughtful and very safe way for them and for the Church."
• “We hope we can do more and more in the future, and as the Church grows, there will be more opportunities for doing good.”
• The other major factor is how quickly the church can ensure new avenues for precise giving. For example, Latter-day Saint Charities carefully and thoroughly assesses each partner. “The last thing you want to do is just give them money and then you really don’t know where it goes,” Bishop Davies said. “So we have both missionaries and area staff on the ground, feet on the ground, who actually are there, they can see that food’s being distributed, or equipment, or schools are being built as part of our program.”

Roger and Teancum are not addressing this.

I'll address it directly.  Point by point:

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

• "Latter-day Saint Charities carefully and thoroughly assesses each partner. 'The last thing you want to do is just give them money and then you really don’t know where it goes,' Bishop Davies said. 'So we have both missionaries and area staff on the ground, feet on the ground, who actually are there, they can see that food’s being distributed, or equipment, or schools are being built as part of our program.'"

That is great. You should only donate to charities that are transparent and that are in fact doing the good they represent, and the Church should be commended for their diligence.

That is why I don't donate to the Church.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

• "Reaching out and helping those in need is 'a very complex endeavor.'"

Totally agree. 100%.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

• "The Church can’t just send out cash and checks to people, he said. 'It has to be done in an organized way, and with follow up, with training, a lot of expertise and good partners. Otherwise, you just don’t get any results.'"

Totally agree. 100%.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

• "Bishop Davies said the Church is careful to select humanitarian projects and partners that will make the best use of the Church’s funds. 'We are very careful with the widow’s mite.'"

Good to hear.

But by the same token, the widow's mite wasting away in Ensign Peak Advisors is just as bad as it being wasted on an ineffective charity.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

• "We recognize that this comes from the faith of Church members and we want to make certain that they have the trust and confidence that their donations are being managed in a careful and thoughtful and very safe way for them and for the Church."

Then why isn't the Church transparent? Why do they demand from other charities the best practices that they themselves aren't willing to abide by?

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

• “We hope we can do more and more in the future, and as the Church grows, there will be more opportunities for doing good.”

Great to hear.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

• The other major factor is how quickly the church can ensure new avenues for precise giving. For example, Latter-day Saint Charities carefully and thoroughly assesses each partner. “The last thing you want to do is just give them money and then you really don’t know where it goes,” Bishop Davies said. “So we have both missionaries and area staff on the ground, feet on the ground, who actually are there, they can see that food’s being distributed, or equipment, or schools are being built as part of our program.”

As I said the  above, that is great.

I have now addressed all that. Please stop saying I haven't.

Having said that, this is all irrelevant to my actual point. The fact that giving away money properly is hard isn't the explanation or excuse for why the Church is hoarding so much money. The real constraint is its budget. Off the top of my head, here are the church's main sources of revenue.

1. The Church has several for-profit businesses (Bonneville International, Deseret Book, City Creek Mall, office buildings, ranches, farms, hunting preserves, etc.) 
2. The Church also has LDS Charities that receives donations from people and organization who trust it to diligently give away money.
3. Members pay tithing and fast offerings and make other donations.
4. The Church has a "rainy day fund" in Ensign Peak Advisors, which owns something on the order of $150 billion in stocks and bonds. These financial assets spin off dividends, coupon payments, and capital appreciation.

I think that's basically it.

So why did the Church give away $1.02 Billion last year? Because that's what was in the budget. That amount consists of fast offerings (that's the biggest component, probably), 10% of profits from the for-profit businesses it directly owns (several years ago Deseret Management Corporation said they donate 10% of their profits to charity. I presume that is still true and that this number holds across all of the for-profit businesses the Church owns), additional donations received by LDS Charities, and any tithing revenue that the Council on the Disposition of Tithes chooses to give. That budget is the limiting constraint on the Church's giving, not the difficulty of giving.

However, according to that same budget, about one billion dollars a year is diverted to Ensign Peak Advisors to be saved "for a rainy day." This so-called "rainy day fund" then grows with interest and with these additional savings made by the Church. My accusation is that between a billion in annual savings and the earned interest on the money that was already there, the fund grows by about $9 billion a year, and that this $9 billion of total income that gets trapped in Ensign Peaks is more money than goes to all of the Church's religious, charitable, and educational missions combined.

More specifically, Gordon B. Hinckley said:

Quote

 

In the financial operations of the Church, we have observed two basic and fixed principles: One, the Church will live within its means. It will not spend more than it receives. Two, a fixed percentage of the income will be set aside to build reserves against what might be called a possible “rainy day.”

 

My specific criticism is that these "basic and fixed principles" are shortsighted and inappropriate for any organization such as the Church that wants to exist into perpetuity and "maintain a balance between having enough reserve funds to cover unexpected expenses or revenue shortfalls and using their resources to advance their mission."

Distributing a billion dollars in fast offerings and other endeavors is superlatively tough, and the Church should be commended for what they do. However, the difficulty in doing that isn't an excuse for a foolish, obsolete, fearful, and shortsighted policy of living on the "two basic fixed principles" as quoted above. That is my criticism, and your rantings about the difficulty of giving away money doesn't have anything to do with it.

Edited November 20, 2023 by Analytics

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

The PB is saying that administering hundreds of millions, or billions, in humanitarian efforts is quite difficult.  Teancum is saying otherwise...

Actually, @Teancum's exact words were:

"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."

I'm becoming quite curious about why you insist on misrepresenting us.

 

[ttribe]

48 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Actually, @Teancum's exact words were:

"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."

I'm becoming quite curious about why you insist on misrepresenting us.

 

The answer: It's rhetorically convenient.

[bluebell]

@Tacenda, I don't remember which thread we were having the discussion in but I thought this article might be interesting to you.  It outlines some of the issues with trying to build affordable house.

https://news.yahoo.com/finance/news/sacramentos-attempt-build-affordable-housing-183622238.html

Clearly the church has money to build it and then absorb most of the cost of them (though we would still be dealing with people buying them cheap just to flip them for a lot more money), but when it comes to building these kinds of homes I was surprised at how hard it is to actually accomplish, even beyond the price tag for development.

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

@Tacenda, I don't remember which thread we were having the discussion in but I thought this article might be interesting to you.  It outlines some of the issues with trying to build affordable house.

https://news.yahoo.com/finance/news/sacramentos-attempt-build-affordable-housing-183622238.html

Clearly the church has money to build it and then absorb most of the cost of them (though we would still be dealing with people buying them cheap just to flip them for a lot more money), but when it comes to building these kinds of homes I was surprised at how hard it is to actually accomplish, even beyond the price tag for development.

You got the right one, not the start of this side conversation, but close:  https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75617-church-sued-again-over-how-it-uses-tithing-contributions-from-members/?do=findComment&comment=1210168702

 

[mfbukowski]

Our covenant is to pay our tithing, IF you have made that covenant.

That is between GOD AND US, not BYU graduated accountants in Salt Lake

In the very unlikely case that the church is mishandling funds, THAT is between God and the "mishandlers" and we have no input or understanding of their motives, nor right to judge of their reasoning. That's their problem 

Our responsibility is to return a portion of those funds to God, period, end of story.

If you think that is NOT happening, give your offerings to an organization God has TOLD YOU is doing the right thing, after prayer and study.

If you don't like it, vote with your feet!

You have a right I think to diligently investigate these matters, but don't sit and complain about it, it's YOUR decision and YOUR Covenant to do the best you can in these issues.

Stay or walk, those are the options.

Staying and gripping is just irresponsible; stand up for your decisions. 

Passive agression is not healthy and imo actually dangerous for both your spiritual and physical health.  You are being abused under the color of authority IF you allow it.

Go by the spirit and ACT otherwise you ignoring your duty as a self- determined human being. 

Hand-wringing over someone else's decisions is not part of the covenant path.

Go do what is proper for your conscience, though I would not advise going to a homeless camp, handing out $100 bills. 😳

But gripping about what you can't control is just stupid

You are letting others remove your agency, and are being acted upon against your will.

But as for me, I'm writing my annual tithing check to the church, and doing so joyfully.

 

 

 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

@Tacenda, I don't remember which thread we were having the discussion in but I thought this article might be interesting to you.  It outlines some of the issues with trying to build affordable house.

https://news.yahoo.com/finance/news/sacramentos-attempt-build-affordable-housing-183622238.html

Clearly the church has money to build it and then absorb most of the cost of them (though we would still be dealing with people buying them cheap just to flip them for a lot more money), but when it comes to building these kinds of homes I was surprised at how hard it is to actually accomplish, even beyond the price tag for development.

https://www.ramseysolutions.com/real-estate/buy-vs-rent-myths-busted#:~:text=Buying a house gives you,neighbors or a grumpy landlord.

I do have to concede, renting isn't at all the worst thing. I guess I've had it drilled into my head, or by having mortgages for my entire married life (husband bought a home before we married) I put it at the top and usually when we've bought a home then sell for all homes but one, we have a lower mortgage payment than most rental payments out there. But having read this article and others, I am not right. It just depends on the situations. Initially home ownership is much more money, because of the down payment, and the upkeep, and the taxes. 

Yes, that article is an interesting one, thanks for sharing. Currently Utah is building some housing of tiny homes for those that qualify that are homeless. I wonder how costly it will be.

https://www.deseret.com/utah/2022/10/19/23412738/tiny-home-village-salt-lake-other-side-vote-approval

 

[Rain]

41 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Our covenant is to pay our tithing, IF you have made that covenant.

Honest question. Where do you you make a covenant to pay tithing? There is sort of a money covenant in the endowment and before getting baptized you are asked if you are willing to pay tithing, but I'm not thinking of a tithing covenant.

41 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

That is between GOD AND US, not BYU graduated accountants in Salt Lake

In the very unlikely case that the church is mishandling funds, THAT is between God and the "mishandlers" and we have no input or understanding of their motives, nor right to judge of their reasoning. That's their problem 

Our responsibility is to return a portion of those funds to God, period, end of story.

If you think that is NOT happening, give your offerings to an organization God has TOLD YOU is doing the right thing, after prayer and study.

If you don't like it, vote with your feet!

You have a right I think to diligently investigate these matters, but don't sit and complain about it, it's YOUR decision and YOUR Covenant to do the best you can in these issues.

Stay or walk, those are the options.

Staying and gripping is just irresponsible; stand up for your decisions. 

Passive agression is not healthy and imo actually dangerous for both your spiritual and physical health.  You are being abused under the color of authority IF you allow it.

Go by the spirit and ACT otherwise you ignoring your duty as a self- determined human being. 

Hand-wringing over someone else's decisions is not part of the covenant path.

Go do what is proper for your conscience, though I would not advise going to a homeless camp, handing out $100 bills. 😳

But gripping about what you can't control is just stupid

You are letting others remove your agency, and are being acted upon against your will.

But as for me, I'm writing my annual tithing check to the church, and doing so joyfully.

 

 

 

 

[SkyRock]

Maybe it is time for the church to suggest tithing be 10% of net and then encourage those who can to give gross......  

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

Honest question. Where do you you make a covenant to pay tithing? There is sort of a money covenant in the endowment and before getting baptized you are asked if you are willing to pay tithing, but I'm not thinking of a tithing covenant.

 

That's two right there- one for baptism and one for the endowment.  I Don't understand the question. How are those NOT Covenants?

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

Honest question. Where do you you make a covenant to pay tithing? There is sort of a money covenant in the endowment and before getting baptized you are asked if you are willing to pay tithing, but I'm not thinking of a tithing covenant.

 

This is an interesting question. Tithing is not specifically taught as a covenant and any scriptures that I can think of off the top of my head, but it is taught as a law of God. So I guess we could ask ourselves “have we covenanted to obey all the laws of God?”

If yes, then it probably makes sense to speak of tithing as a covenant obligation.

[Rain]

56 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

That's two right there- one for baptism and one for the endowment.  I Don't understand the question. How are those NOT Covenants?

I'm not asking if they are covenants.  I'm specifically talking about "Our covenant is to pay our tithing". Where is this tithing covenant?

[Rain]

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This is an interesting question. Tithing is not specifically taught as a covenant and any scriptures that I can think of off the top of my head, but it is taught as a law of God. So I guess we could ask ourselves “have we covenanted to obey all the laws of God?”

If yes, then it probably makes sense to speak of tithing as a covenant obligation.

If we are going to do this with all the laws of God then why separate any of them out? Why not just one covenant "to obey all the laws of God"?

Edited November 21, 2023 by Rain

[bluebell]

37 minutes ago, Rain said:

If we are going to do this with all the laws of God then why separate any of them out? Why not just one covenant "to obey all the laws of God"?

Maybe it has something to do with the difference between baptism and temple covenants?  

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Rain said:

I'm not asking if they are covenants.  I'm specifically talking about "Our covenant is to pay our tithing". Where is this tithing covenant?

The temple. 

1. It is a requirement to enter the temple. 

2. The Covenant there INCLUDES tithing as part of a larger commitment. 

Intro to Section 119:

"The term tithing in the prayer just quoted and in previous revelations (64:23; 85:3; 97:11) had meant not just one-tenth, but all free-will offerings, or contributions, to the Church funds. The Lord had previously given to the Church the law of consecration and stewardship of property, which members (chiefly the leading elders) entered into by a covenant that was to be everlasting. Because of failure on the part of many to abide by this covenant, the Lord withdrew it for a time and gave instead the law of tithing to the whole Church. The Prophet asked the Lord how much of their property He required for sacred purposes. The answer was this revelation. 1–5, The Saints are to pay their surplus property and then give, as tithing, one-tenth of their interest annually; 6–7, Such a course will sanctify the land of Zion."

Also Malachi 3:8 +.

We do this, He does that= a  "covenant".

Edited November 21, 2023 by mfbukowski