Church sued again over how it uses tithing contributions from members

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I heard a story of a couple that spent their savings on serving a mission in England. Then had to sell their home after returning home, their life was much different after that. It was quite a sacrifice, IMO, and that is the crux. I do not see the church sacrifice like they ask their members to do, particularly senior couples being asked to go on more than one mission. Not only money, but missing out on monumental occasions possibly. 

I mentioned this to my very active faithful sister-in-law, and she didn't take it very well. I regretted it, that's why I like this board, I get all my frustrations out. 

Is there any way the church can reduce these fees for the senior missionaries I wonder.

It's my understanding that senior couples choose which missions they can afford to go to.  Is this story an example of someone sacrificing something the church never actually asked of them?

[Diamondhands69]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

My understanding is that England is one of the most expensive missions in the Church.

 

You can look up costs of current missions here. England is much cheaper than it used to be. 
 

https://seniormissionary.churchofjesuschrist.org/srsite/ft/search?lang=eng

[Diamondhands69]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

Agreed. Though, I can hear the complaints now .... "Church pays grandparents to stay away from family!"

That sounds a whole lot better than “ the church guilts elderly people into paying thousands a month to stay away from their family.” 
 

That’s (being away from my family) the second most important reason I wouldn’t serve one. 

Edited November 7, 2023 by Diamondhands69

[Analytics]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I agree.  This is a big reason why the "Just Throw Money At It!" demands being directed at the Church don't make much sense. 

I think this is a straw man--"Just throw money at it!"  isn't what most critics are saying, and assuredly isn't what I am saying.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

The Church could be as feckless and incompetent as, say, the government of California in how it (Cali) approaches homelessness.

By the same token, California could decide to take the Church's approach and use all the money it's currently spending on homelessness and use it to buy stocks and bonds. If the State of California did that and used its financial resources to build up massive capital reserves without a plan to ever deploy them for the benefit of California's citizens, would you celebrate the wisdom of how they use tax revenue?

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

You have been advancing this "general rule of thumb" of "spend{ing} 5% of their principal on their philanthropic mission" for quite a while now.  I find it facile and unreasonable when you propose that it be deployed on the scale at which the Church and its finances operate....

As an example, let's compare the Church to Harvard University. Harvard University has about $72.7 Billion in financial assets, which might be about half of what the Church now has. Its total operating expenses are about $5.4 billion, which might be about a billion less than what the Church spends each year on its religious, educational, and philanthropic missions. 

In its 2022 financial report, Harvard University says "As a general rule, Harvard targets an annual endowment payout rate of 5.0 to 5.5% of market value."

Even though Harvard is a bit smaller than the Church, its size is on the same scale as the Church. So do you think Harvard is being "facile and unreasonable" by subscribing to the same principle I'm articulating? If not, why would it be "facile and unreasonable" for the Church to make choices about saving and spending in the same way Harvard does?

Or do you think Harvard should follow the Church's example and reduce the payout rate on the endowment from the current 5% to 0%? Should it then use a percentage of annual tuition to increase the size of the endowment into perpetuity?

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Analytics: "Just throw 5% of your principal at it!" (Or words substantially to that effect.)  

Nope. I'm not saying that. At all.

There are a few different issues going on here that you are conflating. The issues are:

1- Should the assets the Church has saved in Ensign Peak advisors be considered general reserves, or should they be considered an endowment? (If they are just "reserves", then a general rule of thumb is that they should be limited to about 1-2 years of expenses, e.g. they should be limited to about $10-15 billion. If they are endowment, then about 5% of the principal should be used to fund its mission on an annual basis. I realize you think all of this is foolish, but if were were having this discussion with, say, the CFO of the United Way or the Red Cross, they would find this quite reasonable and an excellent starting point for a productive conversation on capital allocation).

2- Given the fact that the Church is a religious and philanthropic organization in a world defined by scarcity, how much should it save for future rainy days, and how much should it spend on the rainy day we are currently living in?

3- How should it most effectively save and spend its resources?

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

The Presiding Bishopric, I think, have a substantially better grasp than you do of the logistical and practical challenges in effectively and efficiently deploying vast sums of money in the humanitarian/philanthropic sphere.

If they have this expertise, why don't they do it? Because they don't "deploy vast sums of money in the humanitarian/philanthropic sphere;" they do deploy vast sums of money in the stock, bonds, and real estate markets. 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Also, the Church "couldn't make these billions of dollars" unless it had large numbers of Latter-day Saints faithfully paying their tithes.

That is false. If all members stoped paying tithing, it could continue to fund the Church and all of its religious and philanthropic objectives indefinitely. 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Also, the Church "couldn't make these billions of dollars" unless its leaders adopted and followed sound (and entirely legal) fiscal policies and practices (hat tip to N. Eldon Tanner).

That's true, but it just goes to show how short-sighted N. Eldon Tanner was in coming up with this tactic, and how uninspired and fearful the leadership has been since then. N. Eldon Tanner's tactic was appropriate and wise for a couple of decades. It is now shortsighted and foolish.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

The Church is "using the majority of its resources for the public good." 

No it isn't. It's using the majority of its resources to purchase for-profit businesses, stocks, bonds, and real estate. 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

It's just not doing do it using the "Just Throw Money At It!" approach you espouse.

I don't espouse that approach. It's amazing that you think I am. All I'm doing is laying out eminently reasonable guidelines for how churches and charities should decide how much they should save and how much they should spend. These guidelines are based on how experts on such matters see things. The fact that the Church can't responsibly spend as much as it should responsibly spend just proves my point: it literally has too much money.

But maybe you aren't interested in how mainstream experts analyze such things. Last week you said "humanists are untethered from any authoritative voice of authority or moral code." Do you think finance works the same way as morality? Do you think that non-Mormons are "untethered from any authoritative voice on how to decide how much churches and charities should save and spend"? If you see it that way, that would explain why you so adamantly reject mainstream wisdom on these issues.

 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

You've been pounding this drum for some time now.  The Church isn't a "hedge fund," nor is it "like" one....

In the most important ways, it is like one. The Church does use most of its resources to grow the size of its for-profit business empire. That is what it does. That is what it is.

But if you think the Church is wise for operating the way it does, do you think other churches and charities should do likewise? Should the Red Cross, United Way, St. Jude's, Harvard University, etc., all reduce their educational and charitable operations by 60% so they can use that money to buy stocks and bonds instead? If they spend radically less on their philanthropic missions so that they could have "reserve" funds that grow exponentially and never spend a dime until some hypothetical rainy day in the future, would that make the world a better place?

Edited November 7, 2023 by Analytics

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I do not understand what you mean here.  How would "the church," as differentiated from its constituent flesh-and-blood members, "sacrifice?"  Sacrifice what?  

The Church could sacrifice some of the money it is hoarding saving in Ensign Peak Advisors.

Just as a flesh-and-blood humans can sacrifice some of their financial security to pay for a mission, the Church could sacrifice some of its own financial security to pay for a mission. The difference is that the Church has infinitely more financial security than almost all senior missionaries.

 

[Diamondhands69]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

It's my understanding that senior couples choose which missions they can afford to go to.  Is this story an example of someone sacrificing something the church never actually asked of them?

You are correct, they choose where to serve and along with that comes the decision as to whether or not they can afford it. 
 

I have had a few couples who clearly couldn’t afford it. I showed them the math. They went anyway and after returning we have had to significantly tighten their financial belt. They felt they would be blessed. Instead cars have been sold, downsized homes to condos and have little disposable income. Granted they were not much better off prior to the expense, but they did to their finances what a saboteur does to railroad tracks. 
 

I guess their blessing for doing all that is soon when inflation finally finishes off their purchasing power, their kids can help out. In the meantime they take social security early because they have no choice. 

the  problem with this choice  is some couples actually believe they will be blessed for doing it. Perhaps they will be, but they don’t understand it generally doesn’t come in the form of money. A few have expressed to me they trust the market will make up for their wrecking ball in a few years. I suppose we will see but so far not so much. 
 

Prosperity gospel is alive and well. Even pres Nelson has taught it. Somewhere in Africa… pay tithing and you will be prosperous or something to that effect. Total nonsense . There isn’t one country out there who is prosperous because the Mormons paid their tithing. 

 

[let’s roll]

Having just completed a senior mission, I would recommend such service to all.  While we did our best to serve with full purpose of heart we received so much more than we gave…love, compassion, generosity, wisdom.  We will spend a season home with family but expect that we will be in the mission field again in the not too distant future.  I can’t characterize paying for a mission as a sacrifice…anything the money spent on a mission could buy cannot approach the value of a missionary experience.
 

That said, in instances where a missionary does not have the resources to pay for a mission, the Church makes possible missionary service.  We served in a part of the world where the Church pays the mission cost for many young missionaries who, with their family, contribute what they can and the Church pays the rest, which in many cases is most or all of the cost.

Edited November 7, 2023 by let’s roll
Correction

[Raingirl]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I heard a story of a couple that spent their savings on serving a mission in England. Then had to sell their home after returning home, their life was much different after that. It was quite a sacrifice, IMO, and that is the crux. I do not see the church sacrifice like they ask their members to do, particularly senior couples being asked to go on more than one mission. Not only money, but missing out on monumental occasions possibly. 

I mentioned this to my very active faithful sister-in-law, and she didn't take it very well. I regretted it, that's why I like this board, I get all my frustrations out. 

Is there any way the church can reduce these fees for the senior missionaries I wonder.

Are there actually instances of specific senior couples being asked specifically and directly to go on multiple missions? Or even one mission?
The senior couples I’ve known that have gone on missions have made that choice independently. No one approached them and asked them to go on a mission.  It’s simply an opportunity that is there for couples to choose if they so desire. 

[Diamondhands69]

53 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

That said, in instances where a missionary does not have the resources to pay for a mission, the Church makes possible missionary service.  We served in a part of the world where the Church pays the mission cost for many young missionaries who, with their family, contribute what they can and the Church pays the rest, which in many cases is most or all of the cost.

Does the church off set the cost for senior missionaries who cannot pay the whole amount? From what I hear that would be no. 
 

the church does it for the young kids because a mission is well.. we know why the church pushes it so hard for the young men. 

[Diamondhands69]

3 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

Are there actually instances of specific senior couples being asked specifically and directly to go on multiple missions? Or even one mission?
The senior couples I’ve known that have gone on missions have made that choice independently. No one approached them and asked them to go on a mission.  It’s simply an opportunity that is there for couples to choose if they so desire. 

I think most self-select.  Do know a few military retirees who have been approached a few times. There are a serious amount of military liaison openings. The missionary couple has to have one person ( usually hubby) who is a us military retiree because of the id requirement to get on bases. 

[Diamondhands69]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

The Church could sacrifice some of the money it is hoarding saving in Ensign Peak Advisors.

Just as a flesh-and-blood humans can sacrifice some of their financial security to pay for a mission, the Church could sacrifice some of its own financial security to pay for a mission. The difference is that the Church has infinitely more financial security than almost all senior missionaries.

 

They may want to hang in to some cash to pay fines. It has been found that DMBA and Beneficial Life has a 13f scandal of their own to deal with. 
 

DMBA has never filed a 13f and Beneficial Life has not done so either. It appears DMBA had enough assets going a long ways back so essentially has always been required to but never did file any. Beneficial Life only had three quarters where they were required to file. Their assets in stocks rarely rose to the 100mil requirement. Most of their assets were bonds.

we will see what happens or does not happen. 

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

My understanding is that England is one of the most expensive missions in the Church.

I also understand that the Church sometimes allows the couple to choose where they serve (or have a voice in the selection process).  Do you know if this couple did that?

The "crux" of what?

I do not understand what you mean here.  How would "the church," as differentiated from its constituent flesh-and-blood members, "sacrifice?"  Sacrifice what?  

"Being asked" is the operative wording here.

My parents served a mission in Samoa.  My mother became ill, so they came home for a few months, then went back out to complete their mission in Fabens, Texas.

A few years later, they served a mission in Zimbabwe.  It was, and is, one of the most expensive missions for senior missionaries.  It was a financial sacrifice for them, yes.  But then, that's the point of serving in the Church.  Not a debilitating sacrifice, though, because we are supposed to "see that all these things are done in wisdom and order; for it is not requisite that a man should run faster than he has strength" (Mosiah 4:27).

People who serve in the military can often be deployed or otherwise end up "missing out on monumental occasions possibly."

People can move far away for a job or school and end up "missing out on monumental occasions possibly."

People can choose a line of work that yields lower income than they could otherwise get, and end up "missing out on monumental occasions possibly."

And so on.

Most worthwhile endeavors require sacrifice.  The question is whether service in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is one of those endeavors.  I think it is.  YMMV.

I have worked hard in my life.  Right out of high school I served in the military, then I served a mission, married young, chose to have a large family, pursued a college education and then an advanced degree, served in several time-consuming callings in the Church (including a nickel as bishop of my ward), and so on, all while raising the afore-mentioned large family.  I have invested a lot of time and effort and resources in these things.

Last Friday I had a heart-to-heart discussion with a loved one who is very estranged from the Church, and who at one point in the discussion pointed to the above things I have done, and he did so in a vein similar to what you seem to be doing here.  He seemed "frustrated" or annoyed or distressed that I have done these things, apparently as if these things have been wasteful or futile, and that I should not have done them, and should have instead, it seems, traveled the world, delayed marriage and children, and otherwise do things to "find myself."  And he framed these things - things I have done versus things he thinks I should have done - in the context of me as a Latter-day Saint, as having done things in accordance with its doctrines and teachings.

I found myself a bit flummoxed at this.  This loved one was speaking sincerely and from the heart, but his thought processes apparently involved him harboring strong resentments on my behalf, resentments that I think largely center on and against . . . the Church.  Where I have credited the Church for its teachings which have induced me to pursue the foregoing endeavors, it seems that he faults the Church for having had that influence on me, on my decisions, on the course of action I have pursued in life.

I think "the Church" is something of a misnomer.  The Church houses the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, and it is this set of precepts, and my acceptance of and hope in them, that have animated and directed the substantive choices I have made in life.  I am far from perfect, but I have no regrets in serving in the military, or a mission, or marrying young, or having lots of kids, etc. (though I certainly have regrets as to my imperfections and failings in these various endeavors).  

I am saddened that this loved one has chosen to survey my life's actions through the lens of his hostility to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  

I am saddened that this loved one has chosen to resent the Church for influencing my life in ways that I view with gratitude, happiness, and a sense of real meaning and accomplishment.

I am saddened that this loved one has chosen to harbor these resentments on my behalf.

I am saddened that this loved one views my efforts and accomplishments as being inferior to pursuits I should have had.

I am trying to figure out how, or if, I should confer with this loved one regarding the foregoing matters.  I could try to persuade him away from having such a dank and bleak and negative assessment of how I have lived my life.  However, such an attempt would likely involve me giving credit where it is due, including expressing gratitude for the Restored Gospel (and the organization that houses it).  Such sentiments would, I fear, conflict too much with his current disposition to think of the Church negatively, to describe it in the worst possible ways, to cast it in the worst possible light, to blame it, and so on.

I don't know that I want to provoke such a thing.  

I would be very much on board with the Church easing the expenses associated with senior missions.  Honestly, I am surprised that it has not done so.  However, I leave such matters to the Brethren.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm sorry Smac, I think I touched a nerve. Somewhat like I did with my dear sister-in-law. It's frustrating for your loved one because it probably feels like the church can afford to help members out some more. Honestly some of the missions read like a regular job, so it's almost like they are paying to work for the church, IMO. Sorry again, if I've offended. I do have experience of my own by having a former RS president unhappy after serving in the same mission, England, and working in the basement of a building working with files or something. But they fulfilled it and then even went on to serving a mission while living at home in the Salt Lake area. I was her secretary in Relief Society back in the day and we remained friends.

From Diamond's post: https://seniormissionary.churchofjesuschrist.org/srsite/ft/search?lang=eng

The story I mentioned about the missionary senior couple is from someone that was slowly disaffected from the church and it was his parent's experience that added to the issues he began to have. It was from the podcast with Jim Bennett, great grandson of President David O. McKay and son of Senator Bennett. Jim and an old missionary companion, Ian Wilks both served together in Scotland. They interview George Stewart who was in Scotland at the time of their mission I think. George shared the story of his parent's hardship after their mission and he does go into more depth than I did. Not sure if you'd want to try to listen or not. I can listen again later and get a time stamp, and hopefully I didn't recall it wrong.

https://podcasts.apple.com/se/podcast/a-conversation-with-george-stewart/id1682941294?i=1000633685905

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Raingirl said:

Are there actually instances of specific senior couples being asked specifically and directly to go on multiple missions? Or even one mission?
The senior couples I’ve known that have gone on missions have made that choice independently. No one approached them and asked them to go on a mission.  It’s simply an opportunity that is there for couples to choose if they so desire. 

It's from this fireside, it's kind of long but there was one speaker that asked senior couples to try to serve two missions. 

https://utah.churchofjesuschrist.org/utah-area-senior-missionary-opportunities-video?lang=eng-ut  Time stamp: 52:23 Specifically, 1:03. But while listening it stems from covid. And the great need. And with further understanding he asked them to serve a service mission at home one and a regular one. And in the fireside it had many video clips of many couples happily doing so, and I need to shut up.

 

Edited November 7, 2023 by Tacenda

[let’s roll]

33 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Does the church off set the cost for senior missionaries who cannot pay the whole amount? From what I hear that would be no. 
 

the church does it for the young kids because a mission is well.. we know why the church pushes it so hard for the young men. 

Yes, it does. 
 

I’m aware of the benefits, spiritual and otherwise, of serving a mission for young men, young women and senior missionaries.  I saw a picture of the missionaries going into the field last week from an in country MTC, about half were Sister missionaries.  Do “we know why the church pushes” those young women?  Is it the same reason “the church pushes it so hard for the young men.”

Do you feel the same way about PEF as you do about mission subsidies?  Benson scholarships?

 

[Diamondhands69]

35 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

Yes, it does. 
 

I’m aware of the benefits, spiritual and otherwise, of serving a mission for young men, young women and senior missionaries.  I saw a picture of the missionaries going into the field last week from an in country MTC, about half were Sister missionaries.  Do “we know why the church pushes” those young women?  Is it the same reason “the church pushes it so hard for the young men.”

Do you feel the same way about PEF as you do about mission subsidies?  Benson scholarships?

 

How do I feel about mission subsidies for seniors? From what I understand, the sticker price is what the senior pays.  That isn’t a subsidy. That is a bill the “volunteer” pays to go work for free. If there is an actual subsidy that helps seniors pay less than advertised I’d like to see a reference to that. From my own family members experience in being senior missionaries and mission presidents, that is not something the church does. That’s why the richer you are, the more exotic a mission you can afford. 
 

No one should have to pay to serve a mission. Spend two years getting treated like crap by the public, mission leadership, yelled at for not getting good enough numbers and told you are not praying hard enough for converts?  One should be paid for that nonsense at the very least. 
 

you will have to educate me on pef. Is that the fund where third world students borrow money from the church for school and pay it back with interest? Why not bring the kids to byu so there will now be two black people there and they can go to school For free then go home and use the education to improve their home country. Why not? Most of the population at byu is white and the parents can likely afford school. The rest of the world is paying tithing so mostly white kids can get a cheap education at byu. I say bring in the third world membership for free school in Utah. 
 

Benson scholarship… good idea up until I read the  part about all male applicants must have completed a full time mission first ( unless honorably excused) . Do we make all males attending byu serve full time missions first or ever?

Edited November 7, 2023 by Diamondhands69

[Tacenda]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

It's from this fireside, it's kind of long but there was one speaker that asked senior couples to try to serve two missions. 

https://utah.churchofjesuschrist.org/utah-area-senior-missionary-opportunities-video?lang=eng-ut  Time stamp: 52:23 Specifically, 1:03. But while listening it stems from covid. And the great need. And with further understanding he asked them to serve a service mission at home one and a regular one. And in the fireside it had many video clips of many couples happily doing so, and I need to shut up.

 

 

Quoting myself, now I can't find exactly the timestamp after the 52 minutes in, but did hear it. Just don't have time to find it at the moment. But see that it's hopefully their choice, but in this fireside they made it clear that it's something the Lord would want them to do. So there is that kind of pressure. To each their own, I'd desired to go on one throughout my marriage so I understand the pull to do the work, for me now, I'd like to do a humanitarian kind. 

[let’s roll]

11 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

No one should have to pay to serve a mission. Spend two years getting treated like crap by the public, mission leadership, yelled at for not getting good enough numbers and told you are not praying hard enough for converts?  One should be paid for that nonsense at the very least.

A mission provides an opportunity for those who choose to consecrate a portion of their lives to Deity to do so.  I invite you to prayerfully consider the role the covenant of consecration plays in assisting God’s children to know Him and to become whole.

When His disciples told Jesus the people were hungry, he told them give ye them to eat, then He fed them.  So why the admonition to the disciples?  Christ performed His miracle after having His disciples invite the gathering to share of their substance and what was shared He multiplied.

I could walk you, point by point, through your questions and try to clear up your misconceptions, but to what end?  You would know some things you don’t know now but would there be any significant or lasting change in your life?  I understand a disciple’s role is to invite others to offer what they desire be multiplied (e.g. knowledge, wisdom, charity, forgiveness) and ask Him, with the requisite intent, to increase it…I extend to you that invitation.

[bluebell]

14 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

You are correct, they choose where to serve and along with that comes the decision as to whether or not they can afford it. 
 

I have had a few couples who clearly couldn’t afford it. I showed them the math. They went anyway and after returning we have had to significantly tighten their financial belt. They felt they would be blessed. Instead cars have been sold, downsized homes to condos and have little disposable income. Granted they were not much better off prior to the expense, but they did to their finances what a saboteur does to railroad tracks. 
 

I guess their blessing for doing all that is soon when inflation finally finishes off their purchasing power, their kids can help out. In the meantime they take social security early because they have no choice. 

the  problem with this choice  is some couples actually believe they will be blessed for doing it. Perhaps they will be, but they don’t understand it generally doesn’t come in the form of money. A few have expressed to me they trust the market will make up for their wrecking ball in a few years. I suppose we will see but so far not so much. 
 

Prosperity gospel is alive and well. Even pres Nelson has taught it. Somewhere in Africa… pay tithing and you will be prosperous or something to that effect. Total nonsense . There isn’t one country out there who is prosperous because the Mormons paid their tithing. 

 

I love to see a reference for that teaching by Pres. Nelson (that if you pay your tithing your country will be prosperous) if you can find it.

[Raingirl]

12 hours ago, Tacenda said:

It's from this fireside, it's kind of long but there was one speaker that asked senior couples to try to serve two missions. 

https://utah.churchofjesuschrist.org/utah-area-senior-missionary-opportunities-video?lang=eng-ut  Time stamp: 52:23 Specifically, 1:03. But while listening it stems from covid. And the great need. And with further understanding he asked them to serve a service mission at home one and a regular one. And in the fireside it had many video clips of many couples happily doing so, and I need to shut up.

 

So, this is one instance of one speaker addressing a specific audience.  Hardly seems to me a church-wide practice or mandate. 

[Diamondhands69]

46 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I love to see a reference for that teaching by Pres. Nelson (that if you pay your tithing your country will be prosperous) if you can find it.

https://www.deseret.com/2018/4/16/20643748/dowry-is-not-the-lord-s-way-in-kenya-lds-president-nelson-says-tithing-breaks-poverty-cycle

 

“President Nelson also said tithing can break cycles of poverty in poor nations and families.

"We preach tithing to the poor people of the world because the poor people of the world have had cycles of poverty, generation after generation," he said. "That same poverty continues from one generation to another, until people pay their tithing."

Edited November 7, 2023 by Diamondhands69
Added quote

[pogi]

13 hours ago, Raingirl said:

Are there actually instances of specific senior couples being asked specifically and directly to go on multiple missions? Or even one mission?
The senior couples I’ve known that have gone on missions have made that choice independently. No one approached them and asked them to go on a mission.  It’s simply an opportunity that is there for couples to choose if they so desire. 

I know that my parents were pulled in by their stake president to serve missions, they are now on their second.  He called them in and said, President Nelson has asked you to serve, will you answer that call?"   They came home with a large hard stock color printout of President Nelson with a caption that said something to the effect of "Seniors, fulfill your divine mandate to serve", and "The Lord needs you". This was a large church wide coordinated effort by the church:

senior_missionary_training_materials.pdf (ldscdn.org)

[bluebell]

55 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

https://www.deseret.com/2018/4/16/20643748/dowry-is-not-the-lord-s-way-in-kenya-lds-president-nelson-says-tithing-breaks-poverty-cycle

 

“President Nelson also said tithing can break cycles of poverty in poor nations and families.

"We preach tithing to the poor people of the world because the poor people of the world have had cycles of poverty, generation after generation," he said. "That same poverty continues from one generation to another, until people pay their tithing."

It sounds like he is saying that paying tithing can stop generational poverty in the family that pays tithing.  I'm not getting the idea that when a family pays tithing their country will become prosperous.  Did I misunderstand your previous claim?

 

[Diamondhands69]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It sounds like he is saying that paying tithing can stop generational poverty in the family that pays tithing.  I'm not getting the idea that when a family pays tithing their country will become prosperous.  Did I misunderstand your previous claim?

 

“President Nelson also said tithing can break cycles of poverty in poor nations and families.
 

 

“Poor nations”

Is that not the same as a country (s) or is this merely a semantic issue for you because he said nation instead of country?  
 

 

[Stormin' Mormon]

8 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

“President Nelson also said tithing can break cycles of poverty in poor nations and families.
 

 

“Poor nations”

Is that not the same as a country (s) or is this merely a semantic issue for you because he said nation instead of country?  
 

 

In poor nations, not of poor nations.

Prepositions matter.

[helix]

Just chiming in with another perspective. Sometimes things are implied but not stated, and others don't catch the implication.

We have a ward member who is a CPA (certified public accountant) and works with individuals and government entities, poor and rich. He said something that stuck with me. I'm paraphrasing from memory: "I've observed people who have the discipline to pay tithing generally avoid poverty. They know their means and how to live within them."

I get that this isn't a universal rule. I know single mothers stressed with kids who just literally don't have extra cash and can't magically create more income for years. But generally budgeting to sacrifice 10% helps a person get finances in order, avoid frivolous habits, and know what income they must live within.

So I'm personally comfortable when a church leader tells members in Africa to pay tithing. Being aware of spending and how to exercise financial self-control is one of the best financial lessons out there.

Edited November 7, 2023 by helix