Church's 2023 Expenditures in Philanthropic/Humanitarian Relief

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, CV75 said:

See?

Meaning what?

[OGHoosier]

10 hours ago, Rain said:

When you talk about relationships here it reminds me of my relationship with my husband. I've for a long time have felt  not strong either way on the church sharing what it does with the money. I've seen reasons why it would be good and reasons why it wouldn't be.  But your post flips me into firmly thinking it should be shared.  As you say, some in a relationship don't share/account, but I could not imagine not fully sharing with my husband who I am closer to than anyone. True, this is supposed to be a parent child relationship with God, but the leaders who run it here on earth are still human and not our parents so it makes perfect sense for them to share about finances with their fellow brothers and sisters.

This speaks exactly to my point - I'm not married to the Church or its leaders, I'm not married to God, the comparison doesn't ring true in my gut. It's not intuitive to me, and I don't see any paradigm-independent reason why I should change that. We're talking pre-rationally here. 

[LoudmouthMormon]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Is there a reason you use quotes here?

I'm trying to summarize and rephrase, to make sure I get what you're saying.  Sorry if it looked like scare quotes or something.

 

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Without disclosure there can be no consent. 

Yeah, that sounds wise, but if you don't understand the phrase "free-will offering" and law behind the phrase, you don't really have much of a point.   The disclosure, in various forms, has been at the bottom of every donation form since they had donation forms.

 

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

More like if I gave money to the Red Cross because they said their stated purpose was to aid in disaster relief.

Not impressed with the analogy.  The church's overall mission is to further the work of Christ and do gospel things.  "Perfect the Saints, proclaim the gospel, redeem the dead" was the deal until 2009, when the fourth "care for the poor and needy" was added.  

 

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I gave them plenty over the years. Well into six figures so hundreds of thousand. [...] Hundreds of thousands buys me the right to have an opinion.

Oh, even if you never paid tithing, you can still have an opinion.  It's just that you get no say.  Your opinion doesn't trump what the church decides to do.  We don't have to defend it.  You calling foul means pretty much squat.   I mean, the world is full of people who used to trust and support someone/something, and then lost the trust and support, and ended up feeling betrayed or lied to.  So from that standpoint I get your issue.   Its just that your opining about what the church needs to do, to make things right by you, is about as relevant as someone's ex talking about how their former lover needs to change.  Or someone who used to live and breathe the chess club, got mad and left the chess club, but still figures they should be able to impact chess club rules.  I'm not even presenting an argument in favor of what the church is doing here.  I'm just suggesting you let it go dude.

 

 

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

For those who are really serious about donating their $$ to relieve humansuffiering I suggest you take the money you donate the church and find organizations whose priority is relieving human suffering.  Three such groups I like are:

https://www.givedirectly.org/?gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIy5Kw1OuKhQMVNHBHAR10TgHOEAAYASAAEgKzXvD_BwE

This group actually give your donation directly t individuals in need.  No middle man. Based on my research they are making a huge difference in peoples lives.

Another:

https://www.givewell.org/?gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIlpeYguyKhQMVL-bjBx0fKAFZEAAYASAAEgLT2_D_BwE

And I also like Kiva which does micro loans:

https://www.kiva.org/

Thumbs up.   Do it.   The church is partially, but only partially, about relieving human suffering in the way it's understood here.   To put it differently, the church continues to be also about saving souls and bringing more to Christ.  Perfect the saints, proclaim the gospel, redeem the dead, take care of the poor and needy.  If you want to take that one-out-of-four, and turn it into the whole picture, go for it.  

Full disclosure - I've been a full tithe payer ~28 years.  Never missed a payment.   Probably ~25 years of my life, I've given to charitable orgs outside the church.  To orgs personally meaningful to my wife and I.   These days, we just do mostly tithing, with equal amounts into Fast Offerings and the Humanitarian Aid line.  I've personally witnessed the miracles coming from Fast Offerings, and I've got the OP links to see how much good is done with humanitarian aid.  I'm totally content. 

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

27 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

The church's overall mission is to further the work of Christ and do gospel things.  "Perfect the Saints, proclaim the gospel, redeem the dead" was the deal until 2009, when the fourth "care for the poor and needy" was added.  

I’m looking for “build a ginormous hedge fund” in this, but I just don’t see it. The church went through enormous lengths to hide this fund from their members. I wonder why? Is it possible they thought an honest disclosure would lead some people to choose to donate elsewhere?
 

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2020/02/08/lds-church-kept-lid-its-b/

So you don’t like the criticism? Get bent?

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Don’t ask the impossible if you want to be taken seriously.  There is no such thing as without bias.  And as seeking points out, there is a problem with “prove” as well.

Something like this looks like a easy way to dismiss someone’s approach as unworthy of attention to me.

It depends on the interlocutors. In this case, I rather think of it as a way to coax insight in the direction of cause and effect over correlation.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Meaning what?

We added a third, coincidence (the opposite direction than I intended!).

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

this case, I rather think of it as a way to coax insight in the direction of cause and effect over correlation.

Not really seeing it as that effective.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, OGHoosier said:

This speaks exactly to my point - I'm not married to the Church or its leaders, I'm not married to God, the comparison doesn't ring true in my gut. It's not intuitive to me, and I don't see any paradigm-independent reason why I should change that. We're talking pre-rationally here. 

You don't need to change it. I was explaining how your post changed things for me. 

I don't see it as only a marriage relationship type of thing.  I see other relationships where people feel they need to be open with money as well. 

So if you feel comfortable with it then I'm good with that. It would be nice if people who didn't feel comfortable with it got the choice to look at the numbers.

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

This is why critics of the Church's charitable giving earn the reputation of never being satisfied. 

Oh malarkey. 

3 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

 

 

The Church IS making great progress in relieving human suffering.  It's charitable donations went from $900 million in 2021 to $1 billion in 2022 to $1.3 billion in 2023. We know that deploying large resources is doable because the CHURCH ACTUALLY HAS BEEN DEPLOYING LARGE RESOURCES AT AN EVER INCREASING RATE.  

 

Sure when you previously were doing very little it is a big jump to go from there to what is still a small amount relative to assets. But that is great. Glad they are doing more. I would love to see the church and you all get behind a plan to do more over time and to see what something  like that looks like.

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

This is weird on so many levels.

It is weird that you think it is weird.😏

[Analytics]

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

Regarding the Church's humanitarian expenditures and efforts, I have previously characterized the position of, IIRC, Analytics and Teancum, and perhaps you, as being essentially a "Just Throw Money At It!"-style approach.  Analytics things the Church should give away a fixed percentage of its principal every year, apparently with no regard for whether such expenditures are sensible. 

Unsurprisingly, smac97 attributed to me a position that is the polar opposite of what I've consistently said on these issues. For the record:

• I believe charities should be financially transparent so that donors and potential donors have a basis for determining whether or not donating to them would be an excellent way to allocate resources.
• I believe that allocating resources effectively is very difficult. Nevertheless, resources ought to be allocated in an effective manner. The Church should make sure that it only donates money to charities where the money will be effectively put to use to make the world a better place. As far as I know, the Church does in fact do this and should be commended for that.
• I believe that all organizations, including corporations, charities, and churches, should find the proper balance between saving and spending. Related to that is finding the proper balance between making sure a charitable endowment is both making the work a better place now and is sustainable into the future. Over the last few years, I've provided many resources on how other organizations achieve this.
• If a charity found that doing charitable work was too difficult and instead decided to save most of its annual income for a future "rainy day" rather than dealing with the rain that is falling now, it wouldn't make sense to donate to such a charity. I believe the Church does its due diligence and doesn't  donate to such organizations.
• Individuals who consider making donations to the Church should consider whether it is sensible to donate to an organization that uses most of its annual income (i.e. tithing plus investment income) to grow the size of its for-profit business portfolio rather than for religious or charitable purposes.

[CV75]

44 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not really seeing it as that effective.

Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

[CV75]

35 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It is weird that you think it is weird.😏

Ha-ha, common ground!  I'll say what's weird about your comment and then you can tell me why you thought mine was weird: 1. the concept of probable proof; 2, the concept that another's belief drives another's ability; 3. it is another interjection antagonistic to the Church.

[Stormin' Mormon]

54 minutes ago, Teancum said:

 I would love to see the church and you all get behind a plan to do more over time and to see what something  like that looks like.

Do you think that there ISN'T a plan to do this already in place and being implemented? That the 44% increase in charitable giving over the last two years just happened by accident?

 

[Rain]

9 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Do you think that there ISN'T a plan to do this already in place and being implemented? That the 44% increase in charitable giving over the last two years just happened by accident?

 

That's the thing. No one knows because no one is told. 

Here is one problem with looking at the available info and saying "yes, there was a plan to increase".  In 2020 many people lost a lot of income. 2021 was tough for a lot of people too.  Part of this giving is based on fast offerings which most likely increased as more people made more money each year - not just in people getting past covid, but also with income raises. If the giving by the church is based on the giving by the people is it accidental or by plan that the amounts given by the church increased as more people gave more money? 

Is that what happened?  Who knows? It's just we can't really know if there was a plan to increase if we have partial info.

Now pro for having a plan to increase shows possibilities in giving machines.  Quite a few more giving machines were placed in Arizona in 2023 than there were in 2022.  That means the church spent more in providing all that goes into the machines. So that shows evidence of a plan.  But if money from the giving machines comes from outside sources (people purchasing items from the machine) does the increase that comes from that and is included in the reports really count as the church giving? If Walmart has a giving bin at their door does Walmart get to count the items dropped into it? Because that's basically what the giving machines are.  

So really, we are back to we don't have enough info to say the church has a plan to increase actual giving from the church.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

How often have you seen it work here on the message board?  Serious question.  Seems like it would be more effective in a more personal venue.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

How often have you seen it work here on the message board?  Serious question.  Seems like it would be more effective in a more personal venue.

About half the time, I'd say. A few posters sometimes try this approach, though not always posed as a question or so simply or directly.

[Analytics]

10 hours ago, Teancum said:

And the lie continues.  Nobody is advocating for this. Does it soothe your conscience to keep saying this?  You really need to stop saying this.

Here is the big irony with @smac97’s position. The reason churches and charities should be transparent is so that people will be able to do their due diligence before donating. But the Church isn’t transparent, and presumably @smac97 “just throws money at” the Church to the tune of something well over $10,000 a year, despite the fact that rather than using the money to further the Church’s religious, educational, and charitable missions, the church will use most of the money to increase the size of its for-profit investment portfolio.

He is the real advocate of “just throw money at it,” as long as the “it” in question is his particular church. 

[LoudmouthMormon]

21 hours ago, Analytics said:

I believe that all organizations, including corporations, charities, and churches, should find the proper balance between saving and spending. Related to that is finding the proper balance between making sure a charitable endowment is both making the work a better place now and is sustainable into the future.

[bolding changes mine]

Over the decades, I've learned to be quite skeptical when I hear someone advocating change and using terms like "proper balance".   It sounds like such a nice, innocent phrase.  But the more you look at it, and hear from proponents, the more you realize it's just a way of pushing a certain agenda from a certain mindset.  Anyone with an agenda and a mindset has a seemingly self-evident understanding of what "proper" looks like. 

 

For example, anyone remember the Georgia Guidestones?  

Quote

The Georgia Guidestones was a granite monument that stood in Elbert County, Georgia, United States, from 1980 to 2022. It was 19 feet 3 inches (5.87 m) tall and made from six granite slabs weighing a total of 237,746 pounds (107,840 kg). The structure was sometimes referred to as an "American Stonehenge". The monument's creators believed that there was going to be an upcoming social, nuclear, or economic calamity and they wanted the monument to serve as a guide for humanity in the world which would exist after it.
...
A message consisting of a set of ten guidelines or principles was engraved on the Georgia Guidestones in eight different languages,
...
According to the monument's sponsors, the inscriptions are meant to guide humanity to conserve nature after a nuclear war, which the creators thought was an imminent threat.

The thing was quite popular on social media for a while.  But 30 seconds of googling revealed the guidelines included stuff like eugenics and population control, enforced by a single world government.   I mean, the wording sounded so soft and reasonable like an @Analytics post, but the devil, as always, is in the details. 

(And of course no, I'm not saying Analytics, or any of you people, are urging eugenics or whatnot.  My only analogous point here, is notions of proper balance are just like butts - everyone's got one, they don't all look the same, and some of 'em stink to high heaven.)

(And no, I'm not even saying y'all critics' desires stink.  Just that all they are is desires.  Powerless wants.  Ideas talked about on discussion forums.)

[smac97]

17 hours ago, Analytics said:

Here is the big irony with @smac97’s position. The reason churches and charities should be transparent is so that people will be able to do their due diligence before donating. But the Church isn’t transparent, and presumably @smac97 “just throws money at” the Church to the tune of something well over $10,000 a year, despite the fact that rather than using the money to further the Church’s religious, educational, and charitable missions, the church will use most of the money to increase the size of its for-profit investment portfolio.

He is the real advocate of “just throw money at it,” as long as the “it” in question is his particular church. 

"Just Throw Money At It!" is a reference to the feckless proposal you and Teancum keep advancing, which is that the Church should rotely donate 5% of its reserve funds every year.  That is the benchmark, what you call the "5% Rule."  Billions and billions of dollars flowing . . . somewhere.  Every year.  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.

As you noted previously, I have called this 5% distribution guideline "feckless," "facile," "unreasonable," "utterly uninformed,", "naive," "absurdly simplistic," "blithe," " ridiculous," "unserious," and "unreasoned."  I have been hard on this proposal because I don't think it is advanced in good faith or with reason.  You and yours never get around to addressing the real-world complexities of the proposal, and I think this is because as soon as you do you would need to acknowledge that the Church's current posture (involving careful vetting of partner organizations and projects, as well as the need to avoid unintentionally harmful effects (such as we've seen with WFP's and other efforts), and the need for the Church to stick with its principles and mandates - encouraging self-reliance being a biggie) is a necessary one, that these vetting and quality control measures can and do impair the Church's ability to more, and that the idea an appropriate benchmark for the Church is a rote percentage amounting to billions every year - without regard to vetting or quality control - is an ill-advised, even dangerous and stupid, idea.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 24, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

21 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Regarding the Church's humanitarian expenditures and efforts, I have previously characterized the position of, IIRC, Analytics and Teancum, and perhaps you, as being essentially a "Just Throw Money At It!"-style approach.  Analytics things the Church should give away a fixed percentage of its principal every year, apparently with no regard for whether such expenditures are sensible. 

Unsurprisingly, smac97 attributed to me a position that is the polar opposite of what I've consistently said on these issues. For the record:

• I believe charities should be financially transparent so that donors and potential donors have a basis for determining whether or not donating to them would be an excellent way to allocate resources.
• I believe that allocating resources effectively is very difficult. Nevertheless, resources ought to be allocated in an effective manner. The Church should make sure that it only donates money to charities where the money will be effectively put to use to make the world a better place. As far as I know, the Church does in fact do this and should be commended for that.
• I believe that all organizations, including corporations, charities, and churches, should find the proper balance between saving and spending. Related to that is finding the proper balance between making sure a charitable endowment is both making the work a better place now and is sustainable into the future. Over the last few years, I've provided many resources on how other organizations achieve this.
• If a charity found that doing charitable work was too difficult and instead decided to save most of its annual income for a future "rainy day" rather than dealing with the rain that is falling now, it wouldn't make sense to donate to such a charity. I believe the Church does its due diligence and doesn't  donate to such organizations.
• Individuals who consider making donations to the Church should consider whether it is sensible to donate to an organization that uses most of its annual income (i.e. tithing plus investment income) to grow the size of its for-profit business portfolio rather than for religious or charitable purposes.

Funny how your statement of "the record" omits what you call the "5% Rule" which is what I have been critiquing and criticizing.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 3/23/2024 at 11:27 AM, Teancum said:

Quote

For advocates of the "Just Throw Money At It!" approach, there is no bottleneck. 

And the lie continues.  Nobody is advocating for this.

Yes, you and Analytics are.

I get that you dislike the pithy label, but the substance of what you and Analytics have been proposing is:

Quote

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....

Every year....

Put more concisely: "Just Throw Money At It!"

On 3/23/2024 at 11:27 AM, Teancum said:

Does it soothe your conscience to keep saying this?  You really need to stop saying this.

As long as you keep advancing such a feckless and unreasoned proposal, I will continue to critique and criticize it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

34 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Just Throw Money At It!" is a reference to the feckless proposal you and Teancum keep advancing, which is that the Church should rotely donate 5% of its reserve funds every year.  That is the benchmark, what you call the "5% Rule."  Billions and billions of dollars flowing . . . somewhere.  Every year.  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.

As you noted previously, I have called this 5% distribution guideline "feckless," "facile," "unreasonable," "utterly uninformed,", "naive," "absurdly simplistic," "blithe," " ridiculous," "unserious," and "unreasoned."

Thanks,

-Smac

Are you saying it’s impossible to responsibly give 5 percent a year? Or just that the church can’t do what other charities are able to achieve? Or that the church needs time? Or that church should not have that goal in the first place? Or something else?

[smac97]

On 3/23/2024 at 11:09 AM, Teancum said:

Quote

Nor is the Church.  This is just an ugly characterization on your part.

Yes the church is hoarding money

And the "Just Throw Money At It!" mantra continues ever on.

On 3/23/2024 at 11:09 AM, Teancum said:

and yes they do try to hide it.

Says the guy who posts behind a pseudonym.

Absent a duty to disclose, "hid{ing}" information is an unfair and misleading characterization.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 3/23/2024 at 10:53 AM, Teancum said:

You excel and arguing for all the reasons why the Church cannot do more to bless the lives of humans beings.

I think your perspective on the Church's efforts are unfair, overwrought, and steeped in faultfinding.

On 3/23/2024 at 10:53 AM, Teancum said:

All while it while it sits upon a mountain of wealth. 

The alternative "Just Throw Money At It!" approach would be irresponsible.

The Church wants to spend more, and is spending more.  Its faultfinding critics will never acknowledge that, though.  Bummer.

On 3/23/2024 at 10:53 AM, Teancum said:

I am not going to debate it. 

I don't think you have much in the way of argument or debate to advance your position.

I would love to see the Church spend more in humanitarian work.  And it is making substantial progress on that front.  But the proposal you and Analytics have been presenting is feckless, unreasoned, and could well end in the Church doing more harm than good.

On 3/23/2024 at 10:53 AM, Teancum said:

I think your doubling down on this is an immoral argument. 

Right back atcha.

Large-scale international humanitarian work is a hugely complex endeavor.  And a pretty risky one.  There's more at stake than the Church just wasting money.  It could end up doing positive harm, albeit unintentionally.  I have provided a number of articles that explain in detail how and why humanitarian work can lead to such unintentionally terrible/harmful results, but you and yours refuse to address any of that.  

On 3/23/2024 at 10:53 AM, Teancum said:

Nobody says deploying large resources is easy. It is not. 

And yet you and your compatriots endlessly play the armchair quarterback.  

On 3/23/2024 at 10:53 AM, Teancum said:

But it is doable and the church has the resources both financially and intellectually to make great progress to do more to relieve human suffering.  But keep making excuses.

"Do more to relieve human suffering."  How trite and facile this is. 

In one breath you acknowledge the complexities of the task, and in the next you vilify the Church by accusing it of not being as interested as you are in "reliev{ing} human suffering" because it has not met your utterly vague and arbitrary standard of "more."

 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 25, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

On 3/22/2024 at 6:44 PM, Stormin' Mormon said:

Quote

I would hope that, too.  But this is a painstaking process, and one heavily reliant on the character of individual flesh-and-blood actors.  An NGO might have a stellar track record, but then the old director retires and a new guy comes in and messes the whole thing up.  It's not an intractable issue, just a time-and-resource-consuming one.  The Church will need to constantly vet and re-vet NGOs and individual projects, and monitor them afterwards.

This is an interesting point and causes me to reconsider a related issue.

It may not be in the best interest of either the Church or its partnering organizations for the Church to donate so much to a single entity that it becomes the predominant donor. If the partner cannot survive without ongoing support from the LDS church, then the church is left with no graceful exit strategy and the partner is held captive to the policy preferences of its majority patron.

If thats a valid concern, then it may be best for all parties concerned if church donations to its charitable partners scale with donations from other donors.

Again, the trainwreck that is California's approach to homelessness really deserves some discussion.  In that scenario, the objective is worthwhile, but California - which if it were a sovereign nation would be the fifth-largest economy in the world (behind India and ahead of the UK) - has become what Teancum and Analytics seem to want: an irresponsible sugar daddy fecklessly and irresponsibly pouring billions into addressing the problem, with little to no oversight, vetting, accountability, etc.  As a result, fighting "homelessness" has become a massive industry in that state, a money-making endeavor riddled with perverse incentives in perpetuating the problem, not solving it.  Graft.  Corruption.  Incompetence.  Malfeasance.

Teandum and Analytics don't care.  Billions upon billions every year.  With the benchmark being an arbitrary percentage figure, and one utterly unrelated to whether the Church's expenditures and efforts are efficiently and effectively contributing to the alleviation of human suffering.  

"Just Throw Money At It!" is the order of the day. 

Thanks,

-Smac