Does the LDS church do anything similar?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

  The Presiding Bishopric has the primary responsibility for this area of work.

Sister Eubank in at least one talk and possibly more I have heard from her has spoken on how she was interacting with placed senior missionary couples who worked with locals and would let her know of needs, which she would ho check out and then report back to her committee, which included iirc one member of the Presiding Bishopric and one member of the General RS, who would they authorize urgent money needs as well as formulate long term plans.  The first time I heard her speak of this at FAIR it was for Turkey and they had already pulled out the regular missionaries due to looming danger…plus you don’t need a lot of clueless missionaries consuming essential water and food supplies even if they are hard workers and would be great helpers, but the senior couple was hanging around specifically to help coordinate disaster efforts by the Church.

So while I haven’t heard of a formal program (maybe now there are some with service missionaries), it would appear the Church has people able to do this even if there are no local members available.  
 

The Church also replies to requests by organizations (there was a SL LGBT youth shelter that applied for a grant a few years ago, for example) or governments, such as in this case with upgrading an orphanage in Cote d’Ivoire.

https://news-africa.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-of-jesus-christ-transforms-orphanage-in-cote-d-rsquo-ivoire

Edited July 5, 2024 by Calm

[Rain]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I have previously suggested that the Church may have more money (and willingness to spend it) than there are appropriate and credible projects/partners on which to spend it.  A few factors:

I highly doubt the church has more money to spend than appropriate and credible partners. I know of several organizations that the church already gives money/items to and they could easily and appropriately accept more. I also know of other appropriate organizations just in the refugee category in Phoenix the church could give money to. Now, you could say they have more money than charities they have vetted, but I can't believe they have more money than credible and appropriate charities can take.  

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

1. International Humanitarian Relief ("IHR") is a very complex and difficult endeavor.  There are many factors to consider above and beyond providing financial support. 

2. The Church is not primarily a humanitarian organization.  That is an an important part of its raison d'être, but not the sum total.  This is a point meriting emphasis because there seems to be a presupposition that the Church is, or ought to be, primarily - perhaps even solely - focused on IHR.  When that presupposition is set aside, the Church's posture can be more reasonably evaluated.

3. IHR groups and efforts are rife with corruption, incompetence, and well-intentioned-but-nevertheless-harmful efforts.  See, e.g., here, here, here.  The Church is therefore quite smart to proceed cautiously in partnering with other groups/organizations.

It does.  The Presiding Bishopric has the primary responsibility for this area of work.

The "Whistleblower complaint" was first publicized in December 2019.  Per this February 2020 Deseret News article, the Church "{has} doubled its humanitarian spending over the past five years and now annually provides nearly $1 billion in combined humanitarian and welfare aid" and "'we believe {these expenditures} are going to increase fast,' {Bishop Caussé} said."  

It appears, then, that the Church had been ramping up its humanitarian efforts for several years prior to Ensign Peak hitting the news.  It may be that the Church has been more publicly forthcoming about its efforts subsequent to the notoriety about Ensign Peak, but I'm not sure even that is correct.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

[smac97]

40 minutes ago, Rain said:

Quote

I have previously suggested that the Church may have more money (and willingness to spend it) than there are appropriate and credible projects/partners on which to spend it.  A few factors:

I highly doubt the church has more money to spend than appropriate and credible partners.

Okay. 

The various news items which quote general authorities (particularly members of the Presiding Bishopric) includes hints of this sort of bottleneck.  From the Presiding Bishopric in 2020:

Quote

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.”

And here:

Quote

Bishop Caussé said caring for those in need across the globe is at the heart of the mission of the Church. It is not “an appendage to the mission,” but instead is intermingled in everything the Church does. “We are all sons and daughters of God upon the earth, and we are committed to take care of one another,” he said. “And this is one of the ways that, as disciples of Lord Jesus Christ, we care for those in need.”

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.  

 

40 minutes ago, Rain said:

I know of several organizations that the church already gives money/items to and they could easily and appropriately accept more.

How much the Church gives to a particular group or project will always be a judgment call.  

You may well have a point, but I'm not sure how scaleable it is.  That you can point to a few previously-vetted-and-approved organizations capable of absorbing more donations may not necessarily be indicative of the Church not facing broader vetting/approval/monitoring bottlenecks in the IHR sector.

40 minutes ago, Rain said:

I also know of other appropriate organizations just in the refugee category in Phoenix the church could give money to.

Have they applied to the Church for such assistance?

40 minutes ago, Rain said:

Now, you could say they have more money than charities they have vetted, but I can't believe they have more money than credible and appropriate charities can take.  

Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.  I think "credible and appropriate" and "vetted" ought to go hand-in-hand as preconditions for receiving money from the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rain]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay. 

The various news items which quote general authorities (particularly members of the Presiding Bishopric) includes hints of this sort of bottleneck.  From the Presiding Bishopric in 2020:

And here:

 

How much the Church gives to a particular group or project will always be a judgment call.  

You may well have a point, but I'm not sure how scaleable it is.  That you can point to a few previously-vetted-and-approved organizations capable of absorbing more donations may not necessarily be indicative of the Church not facing broader vetting/approval/monitoring bottlenecks in the IHR sector.

Have they applied to the Church for such assistance?

Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.  I think "credible and appropriate" and "vetted" ought to go hand-in-hand as preconditions for receiving money from the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm trying to figure out if you even understood what I was saying because I can't figure out why you would disagree with what I said.  Obviously, credible and appropriate should go with vetting, but just because they are not vetted yet doesn't mean they are not credible and appropriate.  

[Bernard Gui]

Quote

Seven Humanitarian Projects Benefit

The Church donations funded the following:

• New furnishings to provide second-stage transitional housing for women and children fleeing domestic abuse.

• Two vans to be used for procuring more food donations.

• Commercial kitchen equipment and supplies to expand the capacity for meal service and hot lunch programs in four communities.

• Outreach services for life skills training and counselling services.

The humanitarian funds will benefit the British Columbia Salvation Army ministry units in Vancouver, Surrey, Abbotsford, Nanaimo, Gibsons and Fort St. John.

https://news-ca.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-donations-support-salvation-army-humanitarian-projects-across-british-columbia?cid=email-CCD_EM_NEWS_070624_News4c&mkt_tok=NzUyLUlOUS02NzQAAAGUKegtdk2MOvNZGj73KeQFURrmX0zQZzEgZ5FygM1rccausfHTcb0MCFDCD1iW5rrqFxazdtMAkIdjX7g6y6HzmlGd_nqtEFdBonSaL_9sU_c

An example of  substantial donations to existing services....

[JAHS]

If anyone is interested, I have an ongoing list of news articles of humanitarian aid the church has provided over the last 10 years. Sorry if it's like drinking from a fire hose. 😉
Humanitarian Aid

[bsjkki]

The church does work through other organizations and donates money. I think it would be nice if more members volunteered with these other organizations. There are not as many ‘callings’ as there used to be and there are many organizations that need help. I wish there were more members serving with the Red Cross. Our presence in the Denver metro area is just me. We do not have strong ties with disaster or local preparedness partners. No interest from my stake to do more together.

Edited July 8, 2024 by bsjkki

[smac97]

On 7/5/2024 at 5:16 PM, Rain said:

I'm trying to figure out if you even understood what I was saying

I thought I understood you, but I am happy to be corrected.

On 7/5/2024 at 5:16 PM, Rain said:

because I can't figure out why you would disagree with what I said. 

Well, you started out disagreeing with a suggestion I had made:

Me: "I have previously suggested that the Church may have more money (and willingness to spend it) than there are appropriate and credible projects/partners on which to spend it."

You: "I highly doubt the church has more money to spend than appropriate and credible partners {with/whom the Church can spend it}."

We appear to disagree on this point, and I think that is okay.  I extrapolate my suggestion (and it is only that) from quotes from leaders of the Church, various news items about IHR problems ( corruption, incompetence, and well-intentioned-but-nevertheless-harmful efforts, etc.), and from personal inquiry (I know a person who works for the Church in this area, and he has repeatedly commented on the intricacies / complexities / difficulties in advancing IHR projects).

Your position is apparently based on local nonprofits that, in your view, the Church could be financially supporting, but is not.

Neither of these assessments is bulletproof. 

On 7/5/2024 at 5:16 PM, Rain said:

Obviously, credible and appropriate should go with vetting, but just because they are not vetted yet doesn't mean they are not credible and appropriate.  

I agree.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rain]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

I thought I understood you, but I am happy to be corrected.

Well, you started out disagreeing with a suggestion I had made:

Me: "I have previously suggested that the Church may have more money (and willingness to spend it) than there are appropriate and credible projects/partners on which to spend it."

You: "I highly doubt the church has more money to spend than appropriate and credible partners {with/whom the Church can spend it}."

We appear to disagree on this point, and I think that is okay.  I extrapolate my suggestion (and it is only that) from quotes from leaders of the Church, various news items about IHR problems ( corruption, incompetence, and well-intentioned-but-nevertheless-harmful efforts, etc.), and from personal inquiry (I know a person who works for the Church in this area, and he has repeatedly commented on the intricacies / complexities / difficulties in advancing IHR projects).

Your position is apparently based on local nonprofits that, in your view, the Church could be financially supporting, but is not.

Neither of these assessments is bulletproof. 

I agree.  

Thanks,

-Smac

So are you saying there are no other credible and appropriate charities out there because if there were the church would be helping them?

[Rain]

On 7/5/2024 at 3:06 PM, Rain said:

I highly doubt the church has more money to spend than appropriate and credible partners. I know of several organizations that the church already gives money/items to and they could easily and appropriately accept more. I also know of other appropriate organizations just in the refugee category in Phoenix the church could give money to. Now, you could say they have more money than charities they have vetted, but I can't believe they have more money than credible and appropriate charities can take.  

On 7/8/2024 at 8:06 AM, smac97 said:

I thought I understood you, but I am happy to be corrected.

Well, you started out disagreeing with a suggestion I had made:

Me: "I have previously suggested that the Church may have more money (and willingness to spend it) than there are appropriate and credible projects/partners on which to spend it."

You: "I highly doubt the church has more money to spend than appropriate and credible partners {with/whom the Church can spend it}."

We appear to disagree on this point, and I think that is okay.  I extrapolate my suggestion (and it is only that) from quotes from leaders of the Church, various news items about IHR problems ( corruption, incompetence, and well-intentioned-but-nevertheless-harmful efforts, etc.), and from personal inquiry (I know a person who works for the Church in this area, and he has repeatedly commented on the intricacies / complexities / difficulties in advancing IHR projects).

Your position is apparently based on local nonprofits that, in your view, the Church could be financially supporting, but is not.

Neither of these assessments is bulletproof. 

I agree.  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Actually, I said, "I highly doubt the church has more money to spend than appropriate and credible partners. I know of several organizations that the church already gives money/items to and they could easily and appropriately accept more. I also know of other appropriate organizations just in the refugee category in Phoenix the church could give money to. Now, you could say they have more money than charities they have vetted, but I can't believe they have more money than credible and appropriate charities can take. "

Context matters in what I said.  

When you said, "I have previously suggested that the Church may have more money (and willingness to spend it) than there are appropriate and credible projects/partners on which to spend it." and then then listed all the problems with choosing organizations I read it as "the Church may have more money (and willingness to spend it) than there are appropriate and credible projects/partners on which to spend it because all of the corruption".  Maybe others read it as "the Church may have more money (and willingness to spend it) than there are vetted, appropriate and credible projects/partners on which to spend it" and I'm the lone or one of the few that didn't. 

That really surprised me, so I disagreed with your statement and showed why I thought the problem was vetting credible and appropriate organizations and truly thought that once I put "vetting" in you would agree.

So I'm repeating my question: So are you saying there are no other credible and appropriate charities out there because if there were the church would be helping them? And adding, or are you maybe saying "there may be other credible and appropriate charities that the church hasn't been able to vet yet"?

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

Actually, I said, "I highly doubt the church has more money to spend than appropriate and credible partners. I know of several organizations that the church already gives money/items to and they could easily and appropriately accept more. I also know of other appropriate organizations just in the refugee category in Phoenix the church could give money to. Now, you could say they have more money than charities they have vetted, but I can't believe they have more money than credible and appropriate charities can take."

Context matters in what I said.  

I agree.  I did not intend to decontextualize your remarks, and I apologize if I did so.

1 hour ago, Rain said:

When you said, "I have previously suggested that the Church may have more money (and willingness to spend it) than there are appropriate and credible projects/partners on which to spend it." and then then listed all the problems with choosing organizations I read it as "the Church may have more money (and willingness to spend it) than there are appropriate and credible projects/partners on which to spend it because all of the corruption".  Maybe others read it as "the Church may have more money (and willingness to spend it) than there are vetted, appropriate and credible projects/partners on which to spend it" and I'm the lone or one of the few that didn't. 

Corruption is only one impediment.  Competency is another.  Open misconduct.  Lack of efficiency and/or effectiveness.  Fiscal management (some people running IHR-related organizations make tons of money).  Shared values (e.g., the Church's "core principles of personal responsibility, community support, self-reliance and sustainability") (California has done a terrible job at this).

1 hour ago, Rain said:

That really surprised me, so I disagreed with your statement and showed why I thought the problem was vetting credible and appropriate organizations and truly thought that once I put "vetting" in you would agree.

I mostly would, and do.  I guess the caveat is that what you and I think of as "credible and appropriate organizations" may not perfectly overlap with the Church's assessment.

By way of example, let's say that there is a very well-run nonprofit group that is dedicated to handing out clean needles to drug users living on the streets of Portland.  Would the Church be justified in not partnering with this group, as it may have philosophical/ideological concerns about the propriety of "helping" drug users by facilitating their drug use?  Reasonable minds can disagree about such things, but if the Church opts to not support this nonprofit, is that bad?  Or is it a judgment call?

Or what about a nonprofit that is well-intentioned (not "corrupt"), but generally disorganized, inefficient and ineffectual?  Do intentions along render such a group "credible and appropriate"?

Or what about a nonprofit which is not corrupt, and is run well, but its principals pay themselves quite a bit of money?  Is the Church justified in not partnering with it?

1 hour ago, Rain said:

So I'm repeating my question: So are you saying there are no other credible and appropriate charities out there because if there were the church would be helping them?

I'm not saying that "there are no other credible and appropriate charities out there because if there were the church would be helping them?

I am saying that IHR is a very complicated endeavor, that the Church is not primarily a humanitarian organization, that its humanitarian efforts are generally facilitated by partnering with existing NGOs and such, that the Church is careful to vet these groups and the projects in which they are involved, that the Church's vetting efforts likely take into account factors that you and I do not fully appreciate (particularly the "core principles" referenced above), and that the cumulative effect of these factors and considerations is to create something of a bottleneck. 

The Church has large amounts of money it could spend, and despite this (purported) vetting-induced bottleneck, the Church appears to be working hard to expand these efforts (per various news outlets quoting members of the Presiding Bishopric about increases in such expenditures).  

1 hour ago, Rain said:

And adding, or are you maybe saying "there may be other credible and appropriate charities that the church hasn't been able to vet yet"?

Sure.  If someone wants to partner with the Church, they should contact the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 10, 2024 by smac97

[Tacenda]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

I agree.  I did not intend to decontextualize your remarks, and I apologize if I did so.

Corruption is only one impediment.  Competency is another.  Open misconduct.  Lack of efficiency and/or effectiveness.  Fiscal management (some people running IHR-related organizations make tons of money).  Shared values (e.g., the Church's "core principles of personal responsibility, community support, self-reliance and sustainability") (California has done a terrible job at this).

I mostly would, and do.  I guess the caveat is that what you and I think of as "credible and appropriate organizations" may not perfectly overlap with the Church's assessment.

By way of example, let's say that there is a very well-run nonprofit group that is dedicated to handing out clean needles to drug users living on the streets of Portland.  Would the Church be justified in not partnering with this group, as it may have philosophical/ideological concerns about the propriety of "helping" drug users by facilitating their drug use?  Reasonable minds can disagree about such things, but if the Church opts to not support this nonprofit, is that bad?  Or is it a judgment call?

Or what about a nonprofit that is well-intentioned (not "corrupt"), but generally disorganized, inefficient and ineffectual?  Do intentions along render such a group "credible and appropriate"?

Or what about a nonprofit which is not corrupt, and is run well, but its principals pay themselves quite a bit of money?  Is the Church justified in not partnering with it?

I'm not saying that "there are no other credible and appropriate charities out there because if there were the church would be helping them?

I am saying that IHR is a very complicated endeavor, that the Church is not primarily a humanitarian organization, that its humanitarian efforts are generally facilitated by partnering with existing NGOs and such, that the Church is careful to vet these groups and the projects in which they are involved, that the Church's vetting efforts likely take into account factors that you and I do not fully appreciate (particularly the "core principles" referenced above), and that the cumulative effect of these factors and considerations is to create something of a bottleneck. 

The Church has large amounts of money it could spend, and despite this (purported) vetting-induced bottleneck, the Church appears to be working hard to expand these efforts (per various news outlets quoting members of the Presiding Bishopric about increases in such expenditures).  

Sure.  If someone wants to partner with the Church, they should contact the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think many humanitarian agencies that are legit and in dire need of saving the starving people should definitely reach out to the church, I wonder how many do? In fact I would hope the church searches high and low for ways to conquer every human that is starving to death because IMO the church could save everyone on earth, with some leftover.  

AI Overview

Learn more…Opens in new tab

 

According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), ending world hunger by 2030 would require an annual investment of around $267 billion. This figure includes funding for social protection programs, sustainable agriculture, and rural development. However, other estimates suggest that the cost could be between $39–$50 billion annually until 2030. 

 

 

Edited July 10, 2024 by Tacenda

[smac97]

37 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I think many humanitarian agencies that are legit and in dire need of saving the starving people should definitely reach out to the church, I wonder how many do? In fact I would hope the church searches high and low for ways to conquer every human that is starving to death because IMO the church could save everyone on earth, with some leftover.  

These days, the more significant causes are man-made: tyrannical and/or unstable governments, armed conflicts, etc.  I think it's less about there being insufficient amounts of food, and more about impediments to production/distribution.

Moreover, humanitarian efforts to alleviate hunger can, and often do, cause substantial problems.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Undercutting Farmers Abroad

When the US government donates farm products to poor countries, it can undercut local farmers abroad and thus undermine the ability of poor countries to feed themselves. Foreign aid experts have long warned about this problem, but US policies have lagged reforms in other donor countries. CRS notes, “Many other major donors—such as Canada, the United Kingdom, and the European Union—have converted primarily to cash-based assistance” from in-kind food aid.⁶

In recent years, the McGovern-Dole program has given thousands of metric tons of rice to Laos.⁷ But Laos is a substantial producer of rice—indeed a net exporter—and the US donation was small compared to the total Laos production.⁸ Using US taxpayer funds to ship rice across the ocean to potentially displace some of Laos’s production does not make economic sense.

A 2017 study examined 118 countries that received US food aid over 45 years to see if the aid affected local food production. It found that “doubling US food aid reduces cereal-grain production by 1.5%” in recipient countries, and that the “disincentive effect of food aid on production is particularly significant for sub-Saharan African countries, low-income countries, and regular recipients of US food aid.”⁹

Aid agencies and their partners are supposed to analyze whether food aid projects will disrupt local agriculture markets, but the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the agencies “did not consistently document that US commodities would not negatively affect recipient countries’ production or markets.”¹⁰

It is counterproductive to provide foreign aid in ways that interfere with poor countries’ efforts to achieve market-based growth. Thus, providing free commodities that may undermine farmers in recipient countries is not a good long-term aid strategy.

Exacerbating Conflicts

Armed conflicts around the world create demand for humanitarian aid. However, some experts argue that food aid can fuel or sustain conflicts, and thus can do more harm than good in some situations. Food aid can reduce political pressure for warring factions to reach settlements, and it can be seized by combatants and resold to buy weapons or other assets to prolong conflicts.

In a statistical study covering the years 1971 to 2006 across 125 countries, Nathan Nunn and Nancy Qian found that “an increase in US food aid increases the incidence and duration of civil conflicts.”¹¹ Nunn and Qian explain, “Because food aid is regularly transported across vast geographic territories, it is a particularly attractive target for armed factions.”¹² Furthermore, “Governments that receive aid often target it to specific populations, excluding opposition groups or populations in potentially rebellious regions. This has been noted to increase hostilities and promote conflict.”¹³

The food-fuels-conflict idea is one reason experts are exploring alternatives to food aid. A 2022 study on humanitarian aid to war-torn Yemen, for example, found that food aid has been looted by the various factions and used as a tool to reward loyalists on each side.¹⁴ The author argues that aid in the form of digital payments or vouchers is less costly, harder to steal, and easier to track and audit.

Each crisis is unique, so if the US government is to provide foreign aid, it needs to use the right tools in each situation. The problem with the USDA’s aid programs is that they are rigidly based on shipping US-sourced food that can be hijacked by warring parties and used to extend conflicts, which can be a counterproductive way to help troubled countries.

Slow and Expensive Delivery

Even in crises where US food aid may be helpful, the lengthy amount of time needed for delivery reduces its usefulness. US food aid shipments typically take four to six months to reach destinations abroad.¹⁵ USAID pre-positions some food abroad for emergencies, but that approach is expensive and subject to problems such as theft, infestation, and spoilage.

A better approach is usually local and regional procurement (LRP) in markets near where food is needed. But only a small share of US food aid uses this approach. Many policymakers have been swayed by US farm and shipping interests who favor US-sourced food for foreign aid.

LRP is usually less expensive than shipping US food and can reach destinations months earlier.¹⁶ One study found that compared to shipping US food, “Procuring food locally or distributing cash or vouchers results in a time savings of nearly 14 weeks, a 62 percent gain.”¹⁷ The study also found that procuring grains locally was less expensive than shipping from the United States.

The GAO found that US-sourced food aid typically costs 25 percent more than LRP.¹⁸ The agency noted, “Buying food close to where hungry people live has advantages over buying food in the United States and shipping it overseas: It can be much more cost effective and allow for more timely assistance.… This practice can also have the added benefit of supporting the local or regional agricultural sector, rather than undercutting it with imported food.”¹⁹

The George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations favored expanding the LRP approach instead of shipping US food. The Donald Trump administration proposed repealing all three USDA food aid programs and noted, “Procuring food near crises can save up to two months or more on delivery time and can significantly reduce the costs of food aid.”²⁰

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development came to similar conclusions. In a 2006 study on international food aid, the agency found that “food aid in-kind carries substantial efficiency costs, conservatively estimated as at least 30% on average. In contrast, most local purchases or regionally sourced imports are relatively efficient ways of providing food aid.”²¹

US foreign aid leaders have argued for flexibility in aid rather than tying it to US food production. In recent testi­mony to the Senate, USAID’s Sarah Charles called for making US-sourced commodities “a programming option, rather than a requirement” for development aid.²²

Charles pointed to a 2021 project in Haiti where US food aid was counterproductive. USAID found that “in-kind imports distort local markets and would be antithetical to the program’s goal to build resilience amongst farmers. [Haitian] Partners were also concerned about the lack of warehousing and storage capacity, potential displacement of local production and trade.”²³ During program implementation, “escalating insecurity exacerbated challenges … Due to port closures, commodities sat in the port, uncollected for upwards of 3 months, collecting fees and leading to large-scale commodity loss. Additionally, all activities had to be paused in October, following protests that resulted in the looting of commodities from partner warehouses.”²⁴

Because of their historical ties to farming, USDA’s foreign aid programs do not provide the flexibility needed for aid administrators to tackle projects with the best strategies. This is another reason to end the USDA programs and consolidate foreign aid within USAID.

The Church's "core principles of personal responsibility, community support, self-reliance and sustainability" really come into play here.  

We all want to help our fellow man.  I think we should be sure that our efforts are productive, meaningful, and do not inadvertently do more harm than good.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

On 7/5/2024 at 2:28 PM, smac97 said:

have previously suggested that the Church may have more money (and willingness to spend it) than there are appropriate and credible projects/partners on which to spend it.  A few factors:

1. International Humanitarian Relief ("IHR") is a very complex and difficult endeavor.  There are many factors to consider above and beyond providing financial support. 

2. The Church is not primarily a humanitarian organization.  That is an an important part of its raison d'être, but not the sum total.  This is a point meriting emphasis because there seems to be a presupposition that the Church is, or ought to be, primarily - perhaps even solely - focused on IHR.  When that presupposition is set aside, the Church's posture can be more reasonably evaluated.

3. IHR groups and efforts are rife with corruption, incompetence, and well-intentioned-but-nevertheless-harmful efforts.  See, e.g., here, here, here.  The Church is therefore quite smart to proceed cautiously in partnering with other groups/organizations.

I was pretty sure that we would see another one of your why it is to hard for the church to increase its humanitarian effort. You did not disappoint. But boy they sure are good at accumulating wealth and buying real estate.  

 

Quote

 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ commercial real estate arm dropped $174.3 million for the Beacon Logistics Park in Hialeah. 

 

Property Reserve, which invests the LDS church’s reserve funds, bought the majority of the 1.3 million-square-foot industrial campus on the northeast corner of Northwest 107th Avenue and Northwest 145th Place from Codina Partners, according to records. The purchase closed in three separate deals. 

Coral Gables-based Codina and San Antonio, Texas-based Affinius

https://therealdeal.com/miami/2024/01/02/codina-sells-beacon-park-to-mormon-churchs-property-reserve/

 

More property to add to its already massive land ownership further making The Church of Jesus Christ one of the largest private land owners in the USA.

 

  Odd that you argue the Church of Jesus Christ is not primarily a humanitarian organization.  If humanitarian relief is not one of its primary purposes, where does humanitarian aid rank?  I wonder where it is Jesus said "lay up for yourselves treasures on earth and especially buy real estate.  Stock and other equities as well. Don't worry about treasures in heaven.  Relieving the suffering of the poor. Not a primary purpose or mission."

[ZealouslyStriving]

15 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But boy they sure are good at accumulating wealth and buying real estate. 

That's because we are preparing to take over the world.... Muhahahaha

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

That's because we are preparing to take over the world.... Muhahahaha

Matthew 6:19

 

 

¹⁶Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. ¹⁷But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face; ¹⁸That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly. ¹⁹Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: ²⁰But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: ²¹For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. ²²The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of

[ZealouslyStriving]

50 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Matthew 6:19

 

 

¹⁶Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. ¹⁷But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face; ¹⁸That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly. ¹⁹Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: ²⁰But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: ²¹For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. ²²The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of

O how I just adore proof-texting! Can I go, can I go??!!! 👋

(Proverbs 13)

"22 A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children’s children: and the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just."

 

[Teancum]

On 7/5/2024 at 6:06 PM, Rain said:

I highly doubt the church has more money to spend than appropriate and credible partners. I know of several organizations that the church already gives money/items to and they could easily and appropriately accept more. I also know of other appropriate organizations just in the refugee category in Phoenix the church could give money to. Now, you could say they have more money than charities they have vetted, but I can't believe they have more money than credible and appropriate charities can take.  

 

There are plenty of good charities for the church to support. Additionally, if the church really wanted to increase substantially the amount it does for humanitarian relief it has the resources to do so. They already have LDS Charities.  They already have a humanitarian aid from.  They could hire a competent team that has expertise in charitable giving and humanitarian aid.  They could then develop a strategic plan to increase humanitarian relief over a reasonable period of time.  Other large charitable groups and foundations manage to accomplish much good.  To argue that it is just to hard to do charitable and humanitarian aid is rather ludicrous IMO. 

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

O how I just adore proof-texting! Can I go, can I go??!!! 👋

(Proverbs 13)

"22 A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children’s children: and the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just."

 

I suggest you read Mosiah Chapter 4 about feeding and clothing the hungry. How well is your  church doing at that as compared to the massive wealth it holds.  Where is it laying up treasure?  And your passage is not on point because the Church does not leave an inheritance for anyone.

As I have noted before, In my opinion, it is immoral for the Church that claims to be that of Jesus Christ, and one that used to have blessing the poor as an added fourth mission for said Church, to accumulate massive wealth on the backs of it members while % wise doing a small amount for humanitarian aid.  If you all can assuage your conscience and contribute your hard earned money to such an organization by making specious arguments and excuses for this, more power to you. I stopped giving my money to the church long ago. I won't even support fast offering any more because I want my charty $$ to actually go to relieving human suffering and not to a church that seems more  interested in growing their massive wealth portfolio and buying real estate. But it is your money. So have at it. 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I suggest you read Mosiah Chapter 4 about feeding and clothing the hungry. How well is your  church doing at that as compared to the massive wealth it holds.  Where is it laying up treasure?  And your passage is not on point because the Church does not leave an inheritance for anyone.

As I have noted before, In my opinion, it is immoral for the Church that claims to be that of Jesus Christ, and one that used to have blessing the poor as an added fourth mission for said Church, to accumulate massive wealth on the backs of it members while % wise doing a small amount for humanitarian aid.  If you all can assuage your conscience and contribute your hard earned money to such an organization by making specious arguments and excuses for this, more power to you. I stopped giving my money to the church long ago. I won't even support fast offering any more because I want my charty $$ to actually go to relieving human suffering and not to a church that seems more  interested in growing their massive wealth portfolio and buying real estate. But it is your money. So have at it. 

I started out this thread asking if we do something similar anywhere out there such as serving the homeless. But the church of course can and should do this and more. The church pays zero taxes and it's wealth accumulates mass amounts in interest payments too. This was a stark realization when recently my husband had a large sum from an inheritance and seeing how much interest was earned on it on my bank statement. We'd only ever had a small savings account and seen such small amounts. Then I see the jump and it made me wonder how much a trillion (which is probably going to be what the church has soon) and I thought wow! That money should definitely go to feed the starving out there and stat! 

That's why I brought up the wealth status of the church on my thread, therefore veering a little bit from my op. But it would be nice if the powers that be were able to see this thread and do this, bottom up I say! But I'm sure they're aware what kind of interest is available to use. Just wish it could happen!

ETA: But it would be a much larger increase with the church being able to invest in stocks etc. so far more than a measly savings account would earn.

Edited July 11, 2024 by Tacenda

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I suggest you read Mosiah Chapter 4 about feeding and clothing the hungry. How well is your  church doing at that as compared to the massive wealth it holds.  Where is it laying up treasure?  And your passage is not on point because the Church does not leave an inheritance for anyone.

Really? So each generation of Church leaders starts from scratch? The money the Church is "hoarding" will bless many generations and assure that the work will roll forward unimpeded.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

As I have noted before, In my opinion, it is immoral for the Church that claims to be that of Jesus Christ, and one that used to have blessing the poor as an added fourth mission for said Church, to accumulate massive wealth on the backs of it members while % wise doing a small amount for humanitarian aid.  If you all can assuage your conscience and contribute your hard earned money to such an organization by making specious arguments and excuses for this, more power to you. I stopped giving my money to the church long ago. I won't even support fast offering any more because I want my charty $$ to actually go to relieving human suffering and not to a church that seems more  interested in growing their massive wealth portfolio and buying real estate. But it is your money. So have at it. 

Yes, we have heard your opinion many times.

[Teancum]

11 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Really? So each generation of Church leaders starts from scratch? The money the Church is "hoarding" will bless many generations and assure that the work will roll forward unimpeded.

Really?  Well what are they waiting for?  Why not start blessing the current generation?  As it is going now, if the church continues on its current course it will be a trillion $ organization.  I don't know what you mean each generation starting from scratch.  I have never advocated the church should give all its wealth away. In fact I have said it is prudent to have a reserve equal to max of around 3x its annual operating budget.

11 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Yes, we have heard your opinion many times.

Well to bad. Other repeat their opinions quite often here. It is after all a discussion board and this topic does come up periodically.  Don't like what I have to say about it, feel free to ignore me.  Sorry but your skin seems pretty thin when it comes to criticism of your church. 

[bluebell]

32 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I started out this thread asking if we do something similar anywhere out there such as serving the homeless. But the church of course can and should do this and more. The church pays zero taxes and it's wealth accumulates mass amounts in interest payments too. This was a stark realization when recently my husband had a large sum from an inheritance and seeing how much interest was earned on it on my bank statement. We'd only ever had a small savings account and seen such small amounts. Then I see the jump and it made me wonder how much a trillion (which is probably going to be what the church has soon) and I thought wow! That money should definitely go to feed the starving out there and stat! 

That's why I brought up the wealth status of the church on my thread, therefore veering a little bit from my op. But it would be nice if the powers that be were able to see this thread and do this, bottom up I say! But I'm sure they're aware what kind of interest is available to use. Just wish it could happen!

ETA: But it would be a much larger increase with the church being able to invest in stocks etc. so far more than a measly savings account would earn.

The money the church has isn't sitting in an account earning interest though.  I don't remember who it was that explained how it worked but investments aren't the same as bank accounts.  I'm not saying the church's money never earns interest on any investments.  I just think it's important for us to remember that a big percentage of the church's money is theoretical (as in, it's what the church would have if they liquidated all of their assets and sold all of their stocks, it's not what they have in a bank account somewhere).

The church also does pay taxes on it's for profit businesses just like all businesses do.

[ZealouslyStriving]

8 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Really?  Well what are they waiting for?  Why not start blessing the current generation?

You're kidding right? Are you really completely unaware of the amounts of money the Church is donating around the world in addition to all the free materials we receive as members:

https://www.thechurchnews.com/living-faith/2024/07/02/unicef-refugees-learning-for-life-south-sudan-early-childhood-education/?utm_campaign=churchnews-en&utm_content=entry&utm_medium=social_share

https://www.thechurchnews.com/living-faith/2024/06/28/cameroon-africa-refugees-shelterbox-church-support/?utm_campaign=churchnews-en&utm_content=entry&utm_medium=social_share

https://www.thechurchnews.com/living-faith/2024/04/11/brazil-humanitarian-donations-medical-equipement-language-plagrounds-self-reliance/?utm_campaign=churchnews-en&utm_content=entry&utm_medium=social_share

*And it goes on and on and on....*

 

8 minutes ago, Teancum said:

As it is going now, if the church continues on its current course it will be a trillion $ organization.  I don't know what you mean each generation starting from scratch.  I have never advocated the church should give all its wealth away. In fact I have said it is prudent to have a reserve equal to max of around 3x its annual operating budget.

Well to bad. Other repeat their opinions quite often here. It is after all a discussion board and this topic does come up periodically.  Don't like what I have to say about it, feel free to ignore me.  Sorry but your skin seems pretty thin when it comes to criticism of your church. 

What ails you has names- covetousness and envy.

[Calm]

42 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

The church pays zero taxes and it's wealth accumulates mass amounts in interest payments too

It pays taxes on its profit side, businesses, etc, which is where much of its wealth comes from.  My guess is it pays taxes on interest payments since that is from profit ventures.  It does not pay taxes on tithing (nor should it, imo) which is also where it gets much wealth.  It does not pay taxes on church properties which do not generate money unless you assume tithing is the money it generates.