Church's 2023 Expenditures in Philanthropic/Humanitarian Relief

[SeekingUnderstanding]

On 3/22/2024 at 7:54 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

BTW, I think your church should be applauded for expanding their humanitarian efforts. Someone said 30%!?

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

😂🤣

Does it hurt to lie so much?

[smac97]

On 3/22/2024 at 6:16 PM, pogi said:

Quote

And yet you sure seem to not care much about it.  "Just Throw Money At It!" is the order of the day.

There is a LOT that I would like to respond to in your post, but I am not going to waste another breath until you promise to quit with the belligerent and relentless mischaracterization of me and others who deny your characterizations of our views.

Why speak with someone who refuses to listen and respectfully dialogue in good faith?

I, and others, have repeatedly denied this characterization and have in fact stated that care and caution needs to be used in vetting charities and donation giving.

We've been having this discussion for quite a while.  You and Teancum and Analytics constantly berate the Church for not doing "more," with "more" never actually being defined.  The only metric for it is an arbitrary number - 5% of the Church's reserve funds.  That's it.  No explanation as to where this money would go, or what controls ought to be applied, or what due diligence the Church should perform (if any any at all).

If you have some sort of coherent proposal for the Church to do "more," let's have it. 

What dollar amount do you propose will be sufficiently "more" in terms of the Church's humanitarian efforts? 

How did you arrive at it?  Where should this money go?  Which groups?  And should these donations be essentially perennial? 

If so, why? 

If not, why not? 

What distinguishes your proposal of what the Church should do from what the Church is presently doing? 

Should the Church be concerned about contributing to unintentionally adverse consequences (such as those I previously noted in relation to the WFP)?  If not, why not? 

If so, what vetting standards, benchmarks, etc. should the Church use?  Should it use any?

What data do you have to support any of this?

What experience/background do you have in facilitating international humanitarian efforts?  Put another way, are you situated to competently adjudicate the Church's efforts? 

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

😂🤣

Does it hurt to lie so much?

Your statement here is the exception that proves the rule.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

52 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Are you saying it’s impossible to responsibly give 5 percent a year?

I am saying that, in the the billions-per-year level at which the Church is or could be operating, a rote percentage - 5% - as a guideline is "feckless," "facile," "unreasonable," "utterly uninformed,", "naive," "absurdly simplistic," "blithe," " ridiculous," "unserious," and "unreasoned."

I am saying that the Church is obligated to be a good steward of its finances, and acceding to the foregoing unfettered proposal would undermine that mandate.

I am saying that the Church is doing a tremendous amount to make the world a better place, but that faultfinding critics are quite adept at always demanding an undefined "more."

I am saying that the international humanitarian industry is rife with corruption, graft, malfeasance, incompetence, an unintentionally causing substantial harm to the very people it is supposed to be helping.

I am saying that I think the Church faces substantial bottlenecks, that it has more money to spend than it has vetted partners and projects to spend it on, that it is nevertheless improving every year in these efforts.

52 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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?

I have addressed this stuff at length in multiple threads.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 3/23/2024 at 2:29 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’m looking for “build a ginormous hedge fund” in this, but I just don’t see it.

Hedge funds are intended to enrich its investors and administrators.  The Church isn't doing that.  The comparison is not apt.

On 3/23/2024 at 2:29 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The church went through enormous lengths to hide this fund from their members.  I wonder why?

You have gone to great lengths to hide your IRL identity on this board.  I wonder why?  (Boy, implying dishonest or malevolent motives sure is easy!)

The EPA has been around since 1997.  It's existence is not a secret.  Its activities are not secret.  Some of the particulars are.  Absent a duty to disclose those particulars, nondisclosure is no more sinister than your nondisclosure of your IRL information.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

We've been having this discussion for quite a while.  You and Teancum and Analytics constantly berate the Church for not doing "more," with "more" never actually being defined.  The only metric for it is an arbitrary number - 5% of the Church's reserve funds.  That's it.  No explanation as to where this money would go, or what controls ought to be applied, or what due diligence the Church should perform (if any any at all).

If you have some sort of coherent proposal for the Church to do "more," let's have it. 

What dollar amount do you propose will be sufficiently "more" in terms of the Church's humanitarian efforts? 

How did you arrive at it?  Where should this money go?  Which groups?  And should these donations be essentially perennial? 

If so, why? 

If not, why not? 

What distinguishes your proposal of what the Church should do from what the Church is presently doing? 

Should the Church be concerned about contributing to unintentionally adverse consequences (such as those I previously noted in relation to the WFP)?  If not, why not? 

If so, what vetting standards, benchmarks, etc. should the Church use?  Should it use any?

What data do you have to support any of this?

What experience/background do you have in facilitating international humanitarian efforts?  Put another way, are you situated to competently adjudicate the Church's efforts? 

Thanks,

-Smac

Not who you're asking, but the church could put out a survey asking for help on what ideas the members have for how best to use humanitarian funds. It wouldn't be abnormal to receive surveys for this since there have been many surveys put out on a bunch of things, including temple advice. Don't quote me, I vaguely remember something to do with the temple one. 

I listened to a recent podcast with Jim Bennett, and in it they mention that at one time the leaders were accountable to the members in the 80' and 90's and before but now the members aren't allowed to be critical. Or to question as far as how the church is being run. 

So for me, I'd like the church to be held accountable again. And held accountable for how they spend the monies from tithes. And hold to what the Saviour said about being their brother's keeper and to take care of the poor and needy. 

 

Edited March 24, 2024 by Tacenda

[Teancum]

On 3/23/2024 at 3:58 PM, LoudmouthMormon said:

 

 

 

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. 

Never said my opinion trumped what the church decides to do now did I?  Just discussing and sharing my view point.

 

On 3/23/2024 at 3:58 PM, LoudmouthMormon said:

 

 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. 

My opinion does not have any desire whatsoever for the church to "make things right by me."   I have no expectations. Nada, cipher, none, zero. I am grateful for much in my life that is good that came from my LDS upbringing and activity.  But there is a lot that is not good as well. My attitude is it is what it is. That is life.  Can't change the past. Just live day by day. 

 

On 3/23/2024 at 3:58 PM, LoudmouthMormon said:

 

I'm just suggesting you let it go dude.

I suggest you and other stop telling disaffected Latter-day Saints what they should or should not do. How I/we process or work through things LDS is our choice and our business. 

 

On 3/23/2024 at 3:58 PM, LoudmouthMormon said:

 

 

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.  

Whatever.  It is pretty clear taking care of the poor is not a high priority for the so called Church of Jesus Christ. 

 

On 3/23/2024 at 3:58 PM, LoudmouthMormon said:

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. 

 

I was always a firm believer in fast offerings. It is a brilliant welfare program. So long as you don't have a stingy bishop. I would have kept giving to FO has it not been for the efforts of the church to hide its massive wealth from its members.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

the leaders were accountable to the members in the 80' and 90's and before but now the members aren't allowed to be critical.

They may have been accountable in the sense that more info was published, but culture didn’t allow any more for criticism, imo.  At least not in the various areas I lived during those decades (California, Kansas, Canada, Utah).  Might have even been less.

Edited March 24, 2024 by Calm

[Teancum]

23 hours ago, CV75 said:

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.

Nah.  I will pass. Thanks! 😏

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes, you and Analytics are.

No we are not. Your are perpetuating a blatant lie.  Bearing false witness.

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

 

 

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

Thanks,

-Smac

No Smac.  We are NOT advancing this argument. You are putting words in our mouth that we have REPEATEDLY corrected you on.  You are lying. Sorry. But you are.  In fact I have supported you in your argument the giving large sums is hard. I just don't think it is as impossible for the church to do it as you do. 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

And you are lying.  How is saying the church is hoarding $$ arguing to just throw money at it. Stop lying dude. Or turn your temple recommend in. Stop bearing false witness.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Says the guy who posts behind a pseudonym.

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

Thanks,

-Smac

I have said here who I am, where I live, etc.  And if someone chooses to post under a pseudonym so what?  I guess all you have now are personal  attacks.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Says the guy who posts behind a pseudonym.

Do you realize how low and petty your comment is?  I don't control hundred of billions of $ built on the good faith contributions of members of the church. Members the church leadership does not trust enough to be transparent with the finances they are stewards of.  When I require 10% of people's income to be in good standing in a church and I attempt to hide how the money is handled then maybe you have an argument.  Good lord.

[MiserereNobis]

Just give it to the Catholics. We’ll take care of it for you!

Joking aside, and I’ve said this before, I and other Catholics I know who are involved in humanitarian efforts have always been pleased with the partnership with your church. This both on a global and local scale. On the local scale, your church’s donations to our food and homelessness programs increased quite a bit during the pandemic and as far as I can tell, have not decreased since then. It’s nice to work together.

In the context of the OP, what is meant by “the church“? Is that the central headquarters? Individual stakes and wards? Individual members? A combo?

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

I really could not care less.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

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.

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.

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.  

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

"Do more to relief 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

More lies. You really are a one note wonder. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

50 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You have gone to great lengths to hide your IRL identity on this board.  I wonder why?  (Boy, implying dishonest or malevolent motives sure is easy!)

Um that’s my real picture there. If you can’t find me, you aren’t that good (if that’s you, PM me and I’ll give you my name - there are only two in the world that share it so hopefully you can make it from there). But as you like to say the comparison isn’t apt, because I’m not asking for donations and tax exempt status. But yes, I know as you’ve argued before, unless I give my banking login credentials I have no standing to criticize 😂🙄

50 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The EPA has been around since 1997.  It's existence is not a secret.  Its activities are not secret. 

Only because of whistleblowers and government action. Otherwise they’d still be very hidden. 

 

[Teancum]

23 hours 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?

 

I think the church is slowly taken steps in this direction.  If there is a plan it is not public. But yea kudos to the church for increasing its humanitarian aid.  I just hope they can continue and accelerate it.  You know, just throw money at it. 😏😉🤪

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

We've been having this discussion for quite a while.  You and Teancum and Analytics constantly berate the Church for not doing "more," with "more" never actually being defined.  The only metric for it is an arbitrary number - 5% of the Church's reserve funds.  That's it.  No explanation as to where this money would go, or what controls ought to be applied, or what due diligence the Church should perform (if any any at all).

If you have some sort of coherent proposal for the Church to do "more," let's have it. 

What dollar amount do you propose will be sufficiently "more" in terms of the Church's humanitarian efforts? 

How did you arrive at it?  Where should this money go?  Which groups?  And should these donations be essentially perennial? 

If so, why? 

If not, why not? 

What distinguishes your proposal of what the Church should do from what the Church is presently doing? 

Should the Church be concerned about contributing to unintentionally adverse consequences (such as those I previously noted in relation to the WFP)?  If not, why not? 

If so, what vetting standards, benchmarks, etc. should the Church use?  Should it use any?

What data do you have to support any of this?

What experience/background do you have in facilitating international humanitarian efforts?  Put another way, are you situated to competently adjudicate the Church's efforts? 

Thanks,

-Smac

It is nice to see that your passive aggressive, now approaching just aggressive and hostile approach, is not reserved for critics.  But your ire is also directed at fellow believers who disagree with your viewpoint.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I am saying that, in the the billions-per-year level at which the Church is or could be operating, a rote percentage - 5% - as a guideline is "feckless," "facile," "unreasonable," "utterly uninformed,", "naive," "absurdly simplistic," "blithe," " ridiculous," "unserious," and "unreasoned."

So just so I have this straight, if your church were to announce at general conference that they are slowly ramping up, with a target to hit 5% in 5 years, you would call that "feckless," "facile," "unreasonable," "utterly uninformed,", "naive," "absurdly simplistic," "blithe," " ridiculous," "unserious," and "unreasoned." Do I have that right? What if they said 3 or 4%? What do you have against setting a goal for how much of your budget you want to spend?

Edited March 24, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[LoudmouthMormon]

On 3/21/2024 at 5:45 PM, smac97 said:

The $1.3 billion the church spent in 2023, according to the faith’s annual “Caring for Those in Need” report released Thursday, went to welfare and self-reliance assistance for members, and wider relief efforts throughout the word without regard to religious affiliation.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

It is pretty clear taking care of the poor is not a high priority for the so called Church of Jesus Christ. 

k

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

k

41 He sat down opposite the treasury and watched the crowd putting money into the treasury. Many rich people put in large sums. 42 A poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which are worth a penny. 43 Then he called his disciples and said to them, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the treasury. 44 For all of them have contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on.”
 

Sometimes it isn’t the absolute amount that tells us what we prioritize. Context matters. 

[LoudmouthMormon]

On 3/23/2024 at 12:08 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I also think they are giving too little compared to their massive fund.

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Sometimes it isn’t the absolute amount that tells us what we prioritize. Context matters.

k

 

[Analytics]

7 hours 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."  I have been hard on this proposal because I don't think it is advanced in good faith or with reason. 

You are being fundamentally unserious.

There are two distinct issues you insist on conflating. The first issue is whether or not it is wise for endowments to have guidelines that balance spending and saving (i.e. "the 5% rule"). I've provided about a dozen references to superlatively respected endowments (e.g. Harvard University) and academic papers who use some version of the 5% rule. If you insist these organizations and research papers are guilty of being utterly uninformed, absurdly simplistic, ridiculous, and unreasoned for having these guidelines, that is your prerogative. However, doing so makes you look like a yokel. Despite your wailing to the contrary, the links I provided were all written by extraordinarily smart and educated people who think about this kind of thing all day every day.

The second issue is whether I think funds ought to be allocated in an effective manner and whether I think doing so is easy. I think my position is 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.

In contrast, you think my position is that I don't care about whether or not the money is used "efficiently and effectively contributing to the alleviation of human suffering." 

Unless you have any ideas on who we could turn to as an authoritative source for what I believe on this topic, we're going to have to agree to disagree.

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

It's odd that a Church that doesn't think money is a very effective mechanism for solving the world's problems wants to hoard so much of it.

Regardless, it looks like you agree with me that money should be donated to well-vetted organizations and used in effective ways, right? If an organization uses the vast majority of its resources to increase the size of its for-profit business empire rather than doing good in the world, it wouldn't make sense to donate to such an organization, right?

In any event, the Church can do whatever it wants with its money. But if it is going to use most of its annual income in the way a hedge fund does instead of the way a church or a charity does, then it ought to be taxed like a hedge fund and not like a Church.

[ZealouslyStriving]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

We've been having this discussion for quite a while.  You and Teancum and Analytics constantly berate the Church for not doing "more," with "more" never actually being defined.  The only metric for it is an arbitrary number - 5% of the Church's reserve funds.  That's it.  No explanation as to where this money would go, or what controls ought to be applied, or what due diligence the Church should perform (if any any at all).

If you have some sort of coherent proposal for the Church to do "more," let's have it. 

What dollar amount do you propose will be sufficiently "more" in terms of the Church's humanitarian efforts? 

How did you arrive at it?  Where should this money go?  Which groups?  And should these donations be essentially perennial? 

If so, why? 

If not, why not? 

What distinguishes your proposal of what the Church should do from what the Church is presently doing? 

Should the Church be concerned about contributing to unintentionally adverse consequences (such as those I previously noted in relation to the WFP)?  If not, why not? 

If so, what vetting standards, benchmarks, etc. should the Church use?  Should it use any?

What data do you have to support any of this?

What experience/background do you have in facilitating international humanitarian efforts?  Put another way, are you situated to competently adjudicate the Church's efforts? 

Thanks,

-Smac

Even if the Church did up it to 5%, they wouldn't be satisfied. They would say, "Why not 10% like all the members are forced to pay?"