Government Funding of Religious/501(c)(3) Charities / Social Services

smac97 · February 5, 2025

I am curious on perspectives as to whether the federal government should directly fund the charitable and social services efforts sponsored by or affiliated with religious groups.

This website seems to be pretty useful as to tracking how much federal money is going and where: https://datarepublican.Com/award_search/

The dataset seems to be based on "Form 990" documents filed by 501(c)(3) entities from 2022 and 2023. It allows for searches of nonprofits using EINs or the entity's 501(c)(3) name. The search results are in table format, with the far right column being "Percent Contributions Taxpayer Funded (Est)." For the sake of simplicity, in the search results below I only evaluated results where the estimated taxpayer contribution is between 8% and 100%.

I conducted the following searches (available as a Google spreadsheet here), with the following results:

Using the above website, a search for "Latter-day Saints" returns zero search results, which to me indicates that the Church does not seek or receive any federal money. I did a search for "LDS" and got 160+ false positives ("LDS" is part of a word in the name of the entity, e.g., "Worlds Christian Endeavor Union, Inc.").
Using the above website, a search for "Episcopal" yields several dozen search results, all apparently from 2022 and 2023, totaling over $250 million dollars in government grants.
Using the above website, a search for "Catholic" yields 180+ search results, all apparently from 2022 and 2023, totaling over $2.255 billion dollars in government grants (yes, with a "b").
Using the above website, a search for "Baptist" yields 110+ search results, all apparently from 2022 and 2023, totaling over $320 million dollars in government grants.
Using the above website, a search for "Methodist" yields 80+ search results, all apparently from 2022 and 2023, totaling over $188 million dollars in government grants.
Using the above website, a search for "Presbyterian" yields 85+ search results, all apparently from 2022 and 2023, totaling over $435 million dollars in government grants.
Of the hundreds of entities in the preceding searches, only one includes the word "Christian." Using the above website, a search for "Christian" yields 1,000 search results (there were probably more, but the search seems to be limited to 1,000 results), all apparently from 2022 and 2023, totaling over $2.038 billion dollars in government grants (yes, with a "b").
Using the above website, a search for "Buddhist" and "Buddhism" yields 7 search results, all apparently from 2022 and 2023, totaling over $3.6 million dollars in government grants.

Based on the names of the 501(c)(3) entities, most of these groups seem to be geared toward "community services," "senior" services, "children's" services, housing, healthcare, and so on.

From ChatGPT:

Quote

I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. My faith is often publicly faulted for not spending enough of its money on charitable/humanitarian efforts. However, it appears that other religious groups heavily rely on public subsidization (via grants from the federal government) of their charitable/humanitarian efforts. My church, on the other hand, apparently neither seeks nor receives any federal grant money. Is this an accurate assessment?

ChatGPT said:

Your assessment is largely accurate. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) primarily funds its charitable and humanitarian efforts through member donations and does not typically seek or receive federal grants. In 2023, the Church reported spending $1.3 billion on welfare and self-reliance assistance for members, as well as broader relief efforts worldwide, regardless of religious affiliation.

This funding model contrasts with some other religious organizations that rely on federal grants to support their charitable activities. The LDS Church's approach allows it to maintain autonomy and direct its humanitarian initiatives according to its priorities and values.

A few questions:

1. As a Latter-day Saint, I have never really bothered to think about whether the Church seeks or receives federal funding for its charitable/humanitarian/philanthropic endeavors. It appears that the Church does not seek or receive such assistance from the federal government. Do you think the Church should be requesting/receiving such funding?

2. I have also never really bothered to think about whether other religious groups or affiliated entities seek/receive federal funding for charitable/humanitarian/philanthropic endeavors. Do you think other churches and affiliated groups should be requesting/receiving such funding? (Also, is the above summary from ChatGPT accurate?)

3. How much oversight do you think the federal government exercises in the public monies sent to these churches and affiliated groups?

4. Is it fair to surmises that faith-based charitable efforts, such as those funded with taxpayer money, are generally more effective than programs directly administered by the federal government?

5. Should the federal government be sending taxpayer monies to any 501(c)(3) entities, regardless of religious affiliation? I'm sure there are thousands of non-religious 501(c)(3) groups dedicated to worthwhile charitable/humanitarian/philanthropic efforts.

6. Is it too late to substantially alter this state of affairs? Have we as a society become too acclimated to "non-profits" suckling at the taxpayers' teat, such that to withdraw federal funding would be catastrophic for 501(c)(3) groups involved in providing important, even vital, charitable/humanitarian/philanthropic services?

7. Is there a way to improve the situation? Devolve funding of these groups to the various states, who may be, in the aggregate, more adept at providing oversight and improving accountability for private expenditures of public funds?

8. Quite a few of the critics of the Church on this board regularly disparage the Church for not spending enough of its own money (whether donations from members, or earnings on invested reserves, or both) on charitable/humanitarian/philanthropic efforts. Is there a way to get an apples-to-apples comparison of the Church's charitable/humanitarian/philanthropic expenditures (again, of its own money) as compared to the charitable/humanitarian/philanthropic expenditures of other religious groups (and their own money, in contrast with taxpayer-funded grants from the federal government)?

9. Same question as above, only as to non-religious 501(c)(3)s.

10. Out of curiosity, I posed the following question to ChatGPT: "How is it that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is able to avoid relying on federal grants, whereas other religious groups rely heavily on them?" Here is the response:

Quote

How The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Avoids Federal Grants While Other Religious Groups Rely on Them

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) is uniquely positioned to fund its charitable and humanitarian efforts independently, whereas many other religious organizations rely heavily on federal grants. Below are the key financial, organizational, and theological reasons why the LDS Church operates differently.

1️⃣ The LDS Church’s Self-Funded Model

A. Strong Financial Independence from Tithing & Investments

✔️ Tithing-Based Revenue:

The LDS Church operates on a robust financial model funded primarily through tithing—a 10% income contribution required of all active members.

With over 17 million members worldwide, tithing generates billions annually.

✔️ For-Profit Business Holdings & Investments:

Unlike many religious groups that depend on external donations or government aid, the LDS Church manages substantial financial reserves and investment portfolios.

Ensign Peak Advisors, the Church’s investment arm, manages an estimated $150 billion+ in assets, ensuring long-term sustainability for operations and humanitarian aid.

✔️ No Need for Outside Subsidies:

Because of this self-sufficiency, the Church has no financial incentive to apply for government grants to fund its charitable initiatives.

2️⃣ Theological & Philosophical Approach to Charity

✔️ Self-Reliance Doctrine:

LDS teachings emphasize self-reliance, personal responsibility, and volunteer service over reliance on external aid.

This extends to Church operations, which prioritize member donations and internal programs rather than government funding.

✔️ Fast Offerings & Member-Led Welfare System:

The Church funds humanitarian aid and welfare programs through fast offerings (voluntary monthly donations from members who skip meals to help the needy).

Church welfare programs (e.g., Bishop’s Storehouse, Deseret Industries) operate independently of government funding.

✔️ Avoiding Political & Government Influence:

The Church prefers to maintain autonomy and avoid government oversight that may come with accepting federal funding.

Other religious groups that receive public funds often must comply with secular regulations, which can sometimes conflict with religious principles.

3️⃣ Why Other Religious Groups Rely on Federal Grants

Unlike the LDS Church, many religious organizations heavily depend on federal funding for social programs. Here’s why:

A. Lack of a Large Independent Financial Base

✔️ Many churches and religious charities lack the financial reserves and steady funding that the LDS Church has.
✔️ Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish social services often seek federal grants to fund programs such as:

Homeless shelters

Refugee resettlement

Food banks

Disaster relief

B. Government Partnerships in Faith-Based Initiatives

✔️ The U.S. government offers billions in grants through programs like the Faith-Based and Community Initiatives Office, which religious organizations can apply for.
✔️ Many churches and faith-based groups (e.g., Catholic Charities, Lutheran Services, Islamic Relief USA) actively pursue federal grants because they lack an independent funding model like the LDS Church.

C. No Restriction on Accepting Government Money

✔️ Some religious groups see no issue with using taxpayer money to fund religious-affiliated charitable work.
✔️ The Catholic Church, for example, receives millions in federal refugee assistance grants through agencies like Catholic Charities USA.
✔️ Other Christian denominations, like the Southern Baptist Convention, partner with FEMA for disaster relief funding.

4️⃣ LDS Church: A Rare Exception Among Religious Groups

The LDS Church stands apart from most religious groups because:

✅ It funds its humanitarian work internally (via tithing, fast offerings, and investments).
✅ It avoids government oversight and maintains full autonomy.
✅ It prioritizes volunteer service and member-driven welfare programs over federal funding.

🚨 In contrast, most other major religious groups lack this level of financial independence and rely on federal grants to sustain their charitable work.

It seems like the Church's independence - that is, it's decision to not seek/receive taxpayer money - is something that some (many? most?) of our critics would find to be a good idea. However, the Church's capacity to not seek/receive taxpayer money appears to arise mostly because of the Church's substantial financial reserves and overall financial strategies, which some (many? most?) of our critics frequently criticize. Thoughts?

11. I asked a follow-up question of ChatGPT (re: the above result from ChatGPT) : "Why do other these other religious groups 'lack an independent funding model like the LDS Church'?"

The response:

Quote

The LDS Church’s financial independence is unique among major religious organizations because it follows a structured, self-reliant funding model that most other religious groups do not replicate. Below are the key reasons why other religious groups lack a comparable independent funding model and why they rely on federal grants instead.

1️⃣ Tithing Practices & Financial Culture

A. The LDS Church Has Mandatory, Universal Tithing

✔️ Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are required to pay a full tithe (10% of their income) as a condition of full participation, including attending the temple.
✔️ This creates a steady, reliable revenue stream from millions of members worldwide.

🚨 Most other religious groups do not enforce tithing in the same way:
🔹 Catholic Church: Tithing is optional—donations vary widely based on individual generosity.
🔹 Mainline Protestant Churches (e.g., United Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran): Encourage voluntary giving, but members often contribute far less than 10%.
🔹 Evangelical & Southern Baptist Churches: Some members tithe, but many give far less than 10%—and participation is inconsistent.
🔹 Jewish & Islamic Organizations: Some synagogues charge membership dues, and zakat (charitable giving) is part of Islam, but funding models vary widely and are often not sufficient for large-scale humanitarian work.

📌 Bottom Line: Most religious groups rely on voluntary, inconsistent donations, while the LDS Church ensures consistent, mandatory funding through its tithing system.

2️⃣ Church-Owned Businesses & Investment Reserves

A. The LDS Church Owns Profitable Businesses & a Large Investment Portfolio

✔️ The LDS Church strategically invests surplus tithing funds into stocks, real estate, and businesses to ensure long-term financial security.
✔️ Ensign Peak Advisors, the Church’s investment arm, manages an estimated $150+ billion in assets.
✔️ The Church also owns for-profit businesses, including agriculture, insurance, media (Deseret News), and real estate development.

🚨 Other religious groups do not have comparable investment strategies:
🔹 The Catholic Church has significant assets, but many dioceses struggle with financial mismanagement, abuse lawsuit settlements, and declining donations.
🔹 Mainline Protestant denominations have endowments but lack large-scale investments like the LDS Church.
🔹 Evangelical megachurches rely heavily on weekly donations and book sales from high-profile pastors—they do not build billion-dollar investment funds.

📌 Bottom Line: The LDS Church invests surplus funds for long-term sustainability, while other religious groups primarily rely on day-to-day donations.

3️⃣ Church Welfare & Charity Model

A. The LDS Church Funds Charity Internally Instead of Seeking Grants

✔️ The Church runs its own welfare system—including Bishop’s Storehouses, Deseret Industries, humanitarian aid, and disaster relief—entirely funded by member donations.
✔️ Fast Offerings (monthly donations from members who skip meals) provide additional funding for poverty relief and emergency assistance.
✔️ Volunteer labor (e.g., missionaries, members helping at Church welfare farms) keeps operational costs low.

🚨 Other religious groups rely on government funding to sustain charity efforts:
🔹 Catholic Charities USA receives hundreds of millions in federal grants for social services.
🔹 Lutheran Social Services & Jewish Federations receive substantial federal funding for refugee resettlement.
🔹 Islamic Relief USA applies for grants for humanitarian projects domestically and internationally.

📌 Bottom Line: The LDS Church funds its charitable work internally, while other religious groups seek external funding from the government to maintain their social programs.

4️⃣ Government Partnership & Federal Grants

A. Other Religious Groups Depend on Government Grants for Social Programs

✔️ The U.S. government provides billions in grants to faith-based organizations for programs like:

Refugee resettlement

Disaster relief

Homeless shelters

Substance abuse treatment

🚨 Religious groups like the Catholic Church, Protestant organizations, and Jewish charities actively apply for these grants because:
🔹 Their voluntary donations do not cover the costs of large-scale charity efforts.
🔹 Many rely on secular partnerships to expand their services.
🔹 They are accustomed to government funding streams that have existed for decades.

📌 Bottom Line: Most religious charities depend on federal funding because they lack the financial self-sufficiency of the LDS Church.

5️⃣ Cultural & Structural Differences

A. The LDS Church’s Centralized Financial Structure

✔️ The LDS Church centralizes all tithing funds at headquarters (Salt Lake City), allowing efficient allocation of resources worldwide.
✔️ Other religious groups often lack centralized financial control, meaning:

Catholic dioceses manage their finances independently.

Protestant denominations leave finances to individual churches, creating funding inconsistencies.

Evangelical megachurches operate independently, meaning financial reserves vary widely.

🚨 Without centralized financial control, most religious groups cannot build large financial reserves.

📌 Bottom Line: The LDS Church’s centralized financial model allows for long-term financial planning, while other religious groups operate on a decentralized, unpredictable financial model.

Conclusion: Why Other Religious Groups Rely on Federal Grants While the LDS Church Does Not

✔️ Mandatory Tithing → Provides consistent funding (vs. voluntary, inconsistent donations).
✔️ Massive Investments → LDS Church has a $150B+ investment fund, while others rely on weekly giving.
✔️ Internal Welfare System → Church funds its own humanitarian work instead of applying for federal grants.
✔️ Financial Centralization → LDS leadership controls all financial resources, ensuring long-term stability.

🚨 Other religious groups lack these advantages, forcing them to seek government funding to sustain their charitable work.

The Church is financially stable, has strong long-term financial strategies and viability, and has extensive charitable/humanitarian/philanthropic efforts, and does not seek or receive taxpayer money. And the Church is able to be in this situation because it does things our critics dislike: tithing, invested reserves, financial centralization, non-reliance on government subsidization, and so on. Might our critics, then, be a bit off-base overall?

12. I am ambivalent about religious groups being funded by the federal government.

I am concerned that religious people have effectively "outsourced" their charitable obligations to the State, which forcibly taxes the citizenry and then sends some of that back to religious groups to fund important charitable/humanitarian/philanthropic efforts. Because taxes are compulsory, this diminishes the connection we can and should have with each other through more voluntary forms of service.

I also think that religious groups "getting into bed" with the federal government can create all sorts of problems (most of which, thankfully, the Church has been able to avoid by retaining its financial independence).

I think there is substantial risk of inefficiencies, corruption, etc. in the non-profit sector.

The federal government is a massively overbuilt, incompetent, inefficient, corrupt bureaucracy. As problematic as the non-profit sector is, I think having the federal government try to administer charitable/humanitarian/philanthropic efforts would be a disaster.

Thanks,

-Smac

Calm · February 6, 2025

Edited for brevity, not using quotations for laziness.

Answers in italics follow questions:

1. It appears that the Church does not seek or receive such assistance from the federal government. Do you think the Church should be requesting/receiving such funding?

Up to church leaders to decide if it matches how we want to operate or not.

2. Do you think other churches and affiliated groups should be requesting/receiving such funding?

Why not if it effectively helps those who need the help targeted by purpose of the funding, helps them reach more in need.

3. How much oversight do you think the federal government exercises in the public monies sent to these churches and affiliated groups?

The minimum needed to create a high probability of effectiveness with minimal waste and corruption.

4. Is it fair to surmises that faith-based charitable efforts, such as those funded with taxpayer money, are generally more effective than programs directly administered by the federal government?

Not without credible data, it isn’t.

5. Should the federal government be sending taxpayer monies to any 501(c)(3) entities, regardless of religious affiliation?

If they are as effective and efficient at fulfilling the purpose without creating significant proselytizing pressure as nonreligious ones, sure.

6. Is it too late to substantially alter this state of affairs? Have we as a society become too acclimated to "non-profits" suckling at the taxpayers' teat, such that to withdraw federal funding would be catastrophic for 501(c)(3) groups involved in providing important, even vital, charitable/humanitarian/philanthropic services?

Don’t know if too late.

I don’t care much about the groups as those employed in upper management probably can likely find other employment. I do care greatly about what will happen to those dependent on such groups for life sustaining help, including locals working for the agencies, as well as assistance in improving quality of life to above subsistence/poverty (such as training and higher education). If federal funding is withdrawn, it should be done slowly and in such a way that it works with other aid sources so they can step in and fill the void for basic needs. I believe it is morally wrong to set up expectations so people make life altering decisions based on those expectations and then drop the assumed responsibility creating havoc in their lives.

7. Is there a way to improve the situation? Devolve funding of these groups to the various states, who may be, in the aggregate, more adept at providing oversight and improving accountability for private expenditures of public funds?

I am not impressed by the consistency of states’ quality of care across the country and whether or not overall it is superior to federal from what I seen. I think a mix between federal and local (and I mean local which includes more than just state level as that can result in some pretty stupid decisions based on what works in one area but not others) is likely most effective.

8. Is there a way to get an apples-to-apples comparison of the Church's charitable/humanitarian/philanthropic expenditures (again, of its own money) as compared to the charitable/humanitarian/philanthropic expenditures of other religious groups (and their own money, in contrast with taxpayer-funded grants from the federal government)?

Don’t know

9. Same question as above, only as to non-religious 501(c)(3)s

Don’t know

10. Thoughts?

Don't have any worth typing out on this…

11. I asked a follow-up question of ChatGPT (re: the above result from ChatGPT) : "Why do other these other religious groups 'lack an independent funding model like the LDS Church'?"…

Not interested in responding, should be asking the groups themselves (or looking at their websites, etc), not ChatGPT, imo.

12. I am ambivalent about religious groups being funded by the federal government.

Let’s not forget part of the LDS welfare process is to encourage individuals to seek available government aid, sometimes even before applying to the Church (which they have the right to since they fund government welfare like others through their taxes and if not the individuals themselves because of low or no income, certainly other members do). In that sense the process is not independent of being funded by the federal government as if the government supplies enough assistance, the Church need not even get involved and if they do get involved the preferred mode seems to be to cover the gaps left by the government rather than replace the government.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/22-providing-for-temporal-needs?lang=eng#sec19

Quote

Members strive to meet their basic needs through their own efforts and help from extended family. When this is insufficient, members may need help from other sources such as:

Government and community resources (see 22.12).

Church assistance.

Edited February 6, 2025 by Calm

Zosimus · February 6, 2025

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

1. As a Latter-day Saint, I have never really bothered to think about whether the Church seeks or receives federal funding for its charitable/humanitarian/philanthropic endeavors. It appears that the Church does not seek or receive such assistance from the federal government. Do you think the Church should be requesting/receiving such funding?

Wouldn't it be something if the Church took over supporting all the critical life-saving government-funded projects that were de-funded last week?

Quote

2. I have also never really bothered to think about whether other religious groups or affiliated entities seek/receive federal funding for charitable/humanitarian/philanthropic endeavors. Do you think other churches and affiliated groups should be requesting/receiving such funding? (Also, is the above summary from ChatGPT accurate?)

IMO churches should be requesting/receiving funding from the following, in order: 1. private donors, 2. corporations, 3. other churches. If those three don't donate enough, then you the burden falls to the taxpayers.

For example, Elon Musk and Donald Trump could step up and fund the medical clinics in refugee camps that they shut down. After all, people are already starting to die from their decisions and that number is likely to go up (source). If private donors, corporations and churches don't have solutions to resolve the consequences of their decisions, then the taxpayers will again be stuck with the responsibility of keeping people alive.

Maybe Trump could sell all his $TRUMP memecoins (aka illegal securities) and replace USAID this year. At its peak, the FDV of $TRUMP meme coin was $75 billion (with a b), that's $25 billion more than USAID's budget.

Quote

3. How much oversight do you think the federal government exercises in the public monies sent to these churches and affiliated groups?

I worked on multiple USAID project's over the past decades. They outsource the oversight, and they usually hire very talented and expensive American-based teams. From my experience, it was the baseline surveying, impact assessing and policy analyzing that had to be sent to USAID every quarter that ended up costing more in time and money than the boots-on-the-ground work. It was painful to have barely enough money to cover the trainings we were doing because half of our budget went to the DC-based impact assessment team (at $200K per year salaries) so they could decide whether or not those of us living and working in the camps for $5 an hour (or volunteering for no dollars an hour) weren't spending too much 🙄

I imagine the reporting that will need to be done to DOGE going forward to assure all projects satisfy the new America First policy requirements will be exhaustive and expensive. The outfits that get paid to do this will make a killing off the American taxpayer's back. Actually I'm calling it now, Elon Musk's data team will be doing the assessments from now on, and they'll charge the projects double for it. Or maybe Musk and Thiel can automate it, and all we need to do is give all US Treasury payment data to Palantir

These tech bros now making decisions for the federal government know exactly what they are doing, and we're all falling for it. Poison the USAID/501c3 well and reallocate all federal funds to "more efficient" administrators. And guess who that's going to be. From the frying pan into the fire

Quote

4. Is it fair to surmises that faith-based charitable efforts, such as those funded with taxpayer money, are generally more effective than programs directly administered by the federal government?

From what I've seen, faith-based projects are some of the best out there because so many of the staffers approach their work with the same zeal that Mormons might approach their missions.

Quote

5. Should the federal government be sending taxpayer monies to any 501(c)(3) entities, regardless of religious affiliation? I'm sure there are thousands of non-religious 501(c)(3) groups dedicated to worthwhile charitable/humanitarian/philanthropic efforts.

Governments should only fund 501c3s when private individuals with surplus resources (eg the tech bro billionaires that had no problem giving Trump hundreds of millions) don't step up. Governments should only fund 501c3s when private corporations like Tesla and Trump-owned company, CIC Digital LLC (the one holding all of Trump's billions of dollars in memecoin value) don't step up. Governments should only fund 501c3s when churches with billions of dollars in rainy-day funds don't step up.

In other words, the government has no choice but to fund 501c3s, because billionaires, private corporations and churches aren't.

Quote

6. Have we as a society become too acclimated to "non-profits" suckling at the taxpayers' teat

Eyeroll

Quote

7. Is there a way to improve the situation? Devolve funding of these groups to the various states, who may be, in the aggregate, more adept at providing oversight and improving accountability for private expenditures of public funds?

Devolve funding of these groups to the various people who may be, in the aggregate, protesting too much about federal funding. If they don't step up to support the projects that keep people alive, then give it back to the taxpayers. And tell those that protest too much about it to jump in a lake

Quote

8. Quite a few of the critics of the Church on this board regularly disparage the Church for not spending enough of its own money (whether donations from members, or earnings on invested reserves, or both) on charitable/humanitarian/philanthropic efforts. Is there a way to get an apples-to-apples comparison of the Church's charitable/humanitarian/philanthropic expenditures (again, of its own money) as compared to the charitable/humanitarian/philanthropic expenditures of other religious groups (and their own money, in contrast with taxpayer-funded grants from the federal government)?

How about an apples-to-apples comparison of the Church's charitable/humanitarian/philanthropic expenditures as compared to USAID?

I think the critics on this board that disparage the rainy day fund would be satisfied if the Church funded the most critical USAID projects this year

Quote

10. Out of curiosity, I posed the following question to ChatGPT: "How is it that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is able to avoid relying on federal grants, whereas other religious groups rely heavily on them?" Here is the response:

I hear Ensign Peak Fund is up to $50 billion (with a b) this year. That's due to the good fortune of owning a lot of booming billionaire tech bro stocks.

by the way, USAID's annual budget also happens to be $50 billion

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

11. I asked a follow-up question of ChatGPT (re: the above result from ChatGPT) : "Why do other these other religious groups 'lack an independent funding model like the LDS Church'?"

Could be that many of them feel investing tithing funds in tech bro stocks and sitting on the profits might be a bad look

Edited February 6, 2025 by Zosimus

Dario_M · February 6, 2025

Why does the church needs to be funded by the government? The church has already so much money. I believe that the government can better spend their money on people who are homeless. Or people who don't have healtcare insurance but still need to go to the hospital because of health problems, and without help they will get in extreme debts. Etc.

Edited February 6, 2025 by Dario_M

The Nehor · February 6, 2025

I am more concerned that a civilian with no government position is running a made up rogue agency spouting garbage about government spending and issuing letters and directives to federal employees and that some people are following those directives.

I think the minutiae of figuring out whether this funding is worthwhile can wait until after this rogue is shut down.

CV75 · February 6, 2025

If I get a cut I don't see any problem with it.

Teancum · February 6, 2025

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Using the above website, a search for "Latter-day Saints" returns zero search results, which to me indicates that the Church does not seek or receive any federal money. I did a search for "LDS" and got 160+ false positives ("LDS" is part of a word in the name of the entity, e.g., "Worlds Christian Endeavor Union, Inc.").

Isn't the 990 the trigger for an entity appearing in your research list? Church's do not file a Form 990. But I see other religious organization which mean I think, they have other charitable or some other activity that falls outside the exemption that churches have from filing the Form 990.

Tacenda · February 6, 2025

14 hours ago, Zosimus said:

Wouldn't it be something if the Church took over supporting all the critical life-saving government-funded projects that were de-funded last week?

IMO churches should be requesting/receiving funding from the following, in order: 1. private donors, 2. corporations, 3. other churches. If those three don't donate enough, then you the burden falls to the taxpayers.

For example, Elon Musk and Donald Trump could step up and fund the medical clinics in refugee camps that they shut down. After all, people are already starting to die from their decisions and that number is likely to go up (source). If private donors, corporations and churches don't have solutions to resolve the consequences of their decisions, then the taxpayers will again be stuck with the responsibility of keeping people alive.

Maybe Trump could sell all his $TRUMP memecoins (aka illegal securities) and replace USAID this year. At its peak, the FDV of $TRUMP meme coin was $75 billion (with a b), that's $25 billion more than USAID's budget.

I worked on multiple USAID project's over the past decades. They outsource the oversight, and they usually hire very talented and expensive American-based teams. From my experience, it was the baseline surveying, impact assessing and policy analyzing that had to be sent to USAID every quarter that ended up costing more in time and money than the boots-on-the-ground work. It was painful to have barely enough money to cover the trainings we were doing because half of our budget went to the DC-based impact assessment team (at $200K per year salaries) so they could decide whether or not those of us living and working in the camps for $5 an hour (or volunteering for no dollars an hour) weren't spending too much 🙄

I imagine the reporting that will need to be done to DOGE going forward to assure all projects satisfy the new America First policy requirements will be exhaustive and expensive. The outfits that get paid to do this will make a killing off the American taxpayer's back. Actually I'm calling it now, Elon Musk's data team will be doing the assessments from now on, and they'll charge the projects double for it. Or maybe Musk and Thiel can automate it, and all we need to do is give all US Treasury payment data to Palantir

Palantir CEO Alex Karp says DOGE is a 'revolution' and 'some people are going to get their heads cut off'

'Elon Musk’s DOGE Is ‘Very Good’ for Palantir, Says CEO Alex Karp

These tech bros now making decisions for the federal government know exactly what they are doing, and we're all falling for it. Poison the USAID/501c3 well and reallocate all federal funds to "more efficient" administrators. And guess who that's going to be. From the frying pan into the fire

From what I've seen, faith-based projects are some of the best out there because so many of the staffers approach their work with the same zeal that Mormons might approach their missions.

Governments should only fund 501c3s when private individuals with surplus resources (eg the tech bro billionaires that had no problem giving Trump hundreds of millions) don't step up. Governments should only fund 501c3s when private corporations like Tesla and Trump-owned company, CIC Digital LLC (the one holding all of Trump's billions of dollars in memecoin value) don't step up. Governments should only fund 501c3s when churches with billions of dollars in rainy-day funds don't step up.

In other words, the government has no choice but to fund 501c3s, because billionaires, private corporations and churches aren't.

Eyeroll

Devolve funding of these groups to the various people who may be, in the aggregate, protesting too much about federal funding. If they don't step up to support the projects that keep people alive, then give it back to the taxpayers. And tell those that protest too much about it to jump in a lake

How about an apples-to-apples comparison of the Church's charitable/humanitarian/philanthropic expenditures as compared to USAID?

I think the critics on this board that disparage the rainy day fund would be satisfied if the Church funded the most critical USAID projects this year

I hear Ensign Peak Fund is up to $50 billion (with a b) this year. That's due to the good fortune of owning a lot of booming billionaire tech bro stocks.

by the way, USAID's annual budget also happens to be $50 billion

Could be that many of them feel investing tithing funds in tech bro stocks and sitting on the profits might be a bad look

I'm sure our creator is looking down with shame at our current government upending the Usaid agency. And about the church, thankful they might be helpful to hopefully help those in need. And hopefully all of us will do our best to help as well

Doctor Steuss · February 6, 2025

I apologize for not answering all of the questions, but here are my opinions/thoughts on the first 5.

Quote

1. As a Latter-day Saint, I have never really bothered to think about whether the Church seeks or receives federal funding for its charitable/humanitarian/philanthropic endeavors. It appears that the Church does not seek or receive such assistance from the federal government. Do you think the Church should be requesting/receiving such funding?

If the Church needed the funding, yes. For example, if the Bishop’s storehouses were to open themselves as foodbanks for communities as a whole, or were to partner with something like ThreeSquare, I think it would be entirely reasonable to request government grants to help offset those costs. Direct food programs (especially those that are staffed primarily with volunteers) are always going to be drastically more efficient (and often more healthy) than food voucher type programs. Food voucher type programs definitely have advantages, especially ones that utilize a debit type card that helps remove a lot of the stigma associated with food insecurity.

Quote

2. I have also never really bothered to think about whether other religious groups or affiliated entities seek/receive federal funding for charitable/humanitarian/philanthropic endeavors. Do you think other churches and affiliated groups should be requesting/receiving such funding? (Also, is the above summary from ChatGPT accurate?)

Absolutely. Many churches have ready-built communities that are uniquely built to serve and meet needs. They also generally have a solid base of repeat volunteers (rather than a round-robin of volunteers that require constant training and oversight). I’ve worked with quite a few different churches here in Vegas. One is a ministry that helps with refugees. Church members essentially “adopt” refugee families to help them integrate and succeed. They receive some government grants to help offset the costs associated with things like housing. The rest comes from church member’s donations. The other is a church that helps foster kids, and primarily focuses on reuniting families. Kind of the same thing as refugees. Church members “adopt” parents, help them get jobs, substance abuse counseling, housing, therapy, etc., as well as foster the children with a Church family to help facilitate more regular contact and visits with bio-parents. Others I have had the honor of working with provide food to the unhoused, help with various shelters, support victims of abuse, provide tutoring services to impoverished children, and a myriad of other incredible things.

These churches (at least the ones I have worked with) are able to do this much more effectively, and efficiently than any government agency would be able to, in my opinion. They absolutely should be able to request grants and funding to help them offset their costs.

Quote

3. How much oversight do you think the federal government exercises in the public monies sent to these churches and affiliated groups?

Honestly, I don’t know. I guess however much is needed to ensure it isn’t solely an evangelizing tactic, and that there aren’t religious strings attached to the help/aid. Also to make sure the funds are actually going to what they claim they are going for in the grant applications.

Quote

4. Is it fair to surmises that faith-based charitable efforts, such as those funded with taxpayer money, are generally more effective than programs directly administered by the federal government?

In some cases, yes. In others, no.

Quote

5. Should the federal government be sending taxpayer monies to any 501(c)(3) entities, regardless of religious affiliation? I'm sure there are thousands of non-religious 501(c)(3) groups dedicated to worthwhile charitable/humanitarian/philanthropic efforts.

If they are meeting a legitimate need that the government is unable to provide more effectively, yes.

Edited February 6, 2025 by Doctor Steuss

smac97 · February 6, 2025

20 hours ago, Zosimus said:

Wouldn't it be something if the Church took over supporting all the critical life-saving government-funded projects that were de-funded last week?

What "critical life-saving government-funded projects that were de-funded last week" are you referencing here?

From this article:

Quote

I don’t want to hear any more about DOGE creating a humanitarian disaster. In the article’s second-to-last paragraph, the WaPo snidely admitted that true humanitarian programs weren’t even included in the funding freeze:

And here:

Quote

The guidelines initially exempted only military aid to Israel and Egypt and emergency food programs but also said program administrators and implementors could apply for waivers for programs that they believe would meet administration standards.

On Tuesday, new Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a broader waiver for programs that provide other “life-saving” assistance, including medicine, medical services, food and shelter, and again pointed to the possibility of waivers. Rubio pointed to the broadened exemptions in an interview Thursday with SiriusXM host Megyn Kelly.

“We don’t want to see people die and the like,” he said.

Rubio said there would be a program-by-program review of which projects make “America safer, stronger or more prosperous.”

The step of shutting down U.S.-funded programs during the 90-day review meant the U.S. was “getting a lot more cooperation” from recipients of humanitarian, development and security assistance, Rubio said. “Because otherwise you don’t get your money.”

The State Department said that since the aid freeze went into effect, it has approved dozens of waivers, although many were returned because they did not include enough detail. It said waiver requests for programs costing “billions of dollars” have been received and are being reviewed.

I think we are only a few days into what will be a very long examination of USAID, the expenditure of funds, corruption, graft, and so on.

20 hours ago, Zosimus said:

IMO churches should be requesting/receiving funding from the following, in order: 1. private donors, 2. corporations, 3. other churches. If those three don't donate enough, then you the burden falls to the taxpayers.

This sounds good. I wonder what is keeping religious groups from doing this now.

20 hours ago, Zosimus said:

For example, Elon Musk and Donald Trump could step up and fund the medical clinics in refugee camps that they shut down. After all, people are already starting to die from their decisions and that number is likely to go up (source).

This is concerning, but it seems to conflict with the statement from Sec. Rubio above.

20 hours ago, Zosimus said:

If private donors, corporations and churches don't have solutions to resolve the consequences of their decisions, then the taxpayers will again be stuck with the responsibility of keeping people alive.

I don't understand. What "decisions" are you referencing here? What "consequences"?

20 hours ago, Zosimus said:

I worked on multiple USAID project's over the past decades. They outsource the oversight, and they usually hire very talented and expensive American-based teams. From my experience, it was the baseline surveying, impact assessing and policy analyzing that had to be sent to USAID every quarter that ended up costing more in time and money than the boots-on-the-ground work.

I think there is massive corruption, waste and incompetence in the NGO and "humanitarian relief" industries. I think we have only seen the first inklings of the rot, and the worst is yet to come. See, e.g., here: What Is USAID and Can the President Abolish It?

Quote

The head offices of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) were closed Monday after staffers were told by email not to come to work. It is the latest move in the Trump administration's plan to shut down the agency.

USAID's website has also been removed.

Elon Musk, who is the head of President Donald Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), announced that he and Trump agreed to shut down USAID after referring to it as a "criminal organization."

Musk has referenced a number of examples of waste and fund mismanagement. He said it was "beyond repair" and it was "time for it to die." The agency's closure would follow Trump's announced freeze on foreign assistance.

I dislike politicized hyperbole, but having read a large number of articles detailing what USAID has been up to, and how it has been behaving for years and years and years, I think the situation is pretty serious.

Quote

It is difficult for voters to escape the political noise and partisan narratives in favor or opposed to the administration's actions. So, what is USAID? And is there evidence of fraud and/or mismanagement within the agency?
...
The agency was established in 1961 by President John F. Kennedy. However, there is a bit more to its creation. Kennedy created it by executive order, but under the authority of congressional legislation.
...

The agency's stated mission is to promote global development, humanitarian assistance, and economic growth in countries around the world. Its programs include:

1. Providing aid during natural disasters, conflicts, and health emergencies;

2. Supporting health initiatives for maternal health, infectious diseases, HIV/AIDS, and COVID-19;

3. Strengthening democratic institutions, human rights, and the rule of law;

4. Promoting economic growth initiatives such as job creation, entrepreneurship, and trade partnerships;

5. Improving access to education, particularly for underserved communities; and

6. Addressing climate change and promoting environmental initiatives for conservation and sustainable development.

I question how much of this should fall within the rubric of USAID, as opposed to the Department of State.

Quote

Is There Evidence of Financial Mismanagement or Abuse in USAID?

Elon Musk has been critical of USAID. He accused the agency of mismanagement and funding controversial projects, including alleged gain-of-function research on coronaviruses linked to EcoHealth Alliance.

He has also pointed to agency contracts including a $1.2 million payment to Deloitte for HR services, $600,000 for an International Center for Language Studies, and over $100,000 for “miscellaneous foreign awardees.”

All of this Musk considers wasteful and mismanaged spending.

There have been other instances in which USAID has faced allegations of fund mismanagement. The agency's Office of Inspector General (OIG) previously identified various challenges and vulnerabilities to its operations.

For example, a health project managed by USAID, valued at $10 billion, encountered numerous issues, including inefficiencies and fraud allegations. These problems compromised the delivery of essential medical supplies.

The OIG also highlighted concerns regarding the conversion of program funds from U.S. dollars into other currencies, which posed risks of financial mismanagement.

Further, the OIG identified instances where fraudsters exploited compromised email accounts to deceive USAID employees and partners, resulting in the misdirection of funds intended for aid recipients.

It is worth noting that these vulnerabilities and challenges are not uncommon for large organizations, especially for an agency like USAID, which manages several programs around the world.

However, this also means it is always a legitimate concern. The USAID has responded to these challenges by implementing measures such as suspension and debarment actions to address misconduct.

Is It True That Only 10% of USAID's Funding Goes to People in Need?

Musk has raised several objections to the way USAID spends its funds. He has even suggested that less than 10% of the agency's budget is actually used to help people in need, but there is no hard evidence to support this claim.

Any sources and reports provided by USAID are not easily accessed online as the agency's website has been taken down. However, the Congressional Research Service broke down the agency's obligations in FY2023.

The $10.5 billion in humanitarian assistance includes over $6 billion managed by USAID to respond to crises in places like Sudan, Afghanistan, Haiti, and the Middle East.

While not addressed by Musk, there is a 10% figure associated with USAID's spending. This is the amount the agency has spent on local organizations, but the agency set a goal to increase this percentage to 25% by 2025.

Some examples of USAID-funded (that is, funded by American taxpayers) projects: In 'waste' of money, USAID channeled vast sums for DEI, LGBTQ programs: White House

Quote

The US Agency for International Development (USAID) has channeled vast sums of money for diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) and LGBTQ programs in "waste" and "abuse" activities for decades, the Trump administration said.

In a statement on Monday, the White House stated that "for decades," the USAID has been "unaccountable to taxpayers as it funnels" large sums of money" into "the ridiculous — and, in many cases, malicious — pet projects of entrenched bureaucrats," with minimal oversight.

The list of "waste" and "abuse" included $1.5 million to “advance diversity equity and inclusion (DEI) in Serbia’s workplaces and business communities, $47,000 for a 'transgender opera' in Colombia," and "$32,000 for a 'transgender comic book' in Peru."

It added $2 million for changing sex and 'LGBT activism' in Guatemala and "hundreds of thousands of dollars" for a non-profit with ties to "designated terrorist organizations"— even after an inspector general opened a probe," were also included in the list.

It appears USAID has spent many years refusing to disclose any of this information, and I think the worst is yet to come.

20 hours ago, Zosimus said:

It was painful to have barely enough money to cover the trainings we were doing because half of our budget went to the DC-based impact assessment team (at $200K per year salaries) so they could decide whether or not those of us living and working in the camps for $5 an hour (or volunteering for no dollars an hour) weren't spending too much 🙄

Hmm. Perhaps a substantial restructuring is in order, so that fatcats in DC get less money, and needy overseas folks get more assistance.

Apparently USAID has not only been corrupt and incompetent, but also secretive and intransigent, refusing to cooperate with congressional inquiries about where the money has been going.

20 hours ago, Zosimus said:

I imagine the reporting that will need to be done to DOGE going forward to assure all projects satisfy the new America First policy requirements will be exhaustive and expensive. The outfits that get paid to do this will make a killing off the American taxpayer's back.

Sadly, the culture of {edit} corruption runs deep in the international humanitarian relief industry. Indeed, I think this is a big part of why the Church is so cautious and circumspect in its humanitarian efforts, as it recognizes - and does not want to contribute to - the corruption. The Church has "boots on the ground" folks (senior missionaries and such) who, unlike some (many?) USAID bureaucrats and NGO shysters, are typically not driven by financial/political/self-dealing motives, and who instead are interested in making sure that the Church's money is well-spent. It slows things down, but avoiding the endemic corruption in the industry is a pretty important facet of humanitarian relief.

20 hours ago, Zosimus said:

From what I've seen, faith-based projects are some of the best out there because so many of the staffers approach their work with the same zeal that Mormons might approach their missions.

I hope so.

20 hours ago, Zosimus said:

Governments should only fund 501c3s when private individuals with surplus resources (eg the tech bro billionaires that had no problem giving Trump hundreds of millions) don't step up.

Two thoughts:

First, why just the "billionaires"? Shouldn't ordinary Americans also "step up"?

Second, I think addressing issues of corruption and incompetence within NGOs should precede or accompany discussions of funding them. The rot is wide and deep.

20 hours ago, Zosimus said:

Governments should only fund 501c3s when private corporations like Tesla and Trump-owned company, CIC Digital LLC (the one holding all of Trump's billions of dollars in memecoin value) don't step up. Governments should only fund 501c3s when churches with billions of dollars in rainy-day funds don't step up.

Your identification of parties who should "step up" is interesting.

20 hours ago, Zosimus said:

In other words, the government has no choice but to fund 501c3s, because billionaires, private corporations and churches aren't.

Perhaps the responsibility for humanitarian/philanthropic relief should be returned to the people.

20 hours ago, Zosimus said:

Quote

Have we as a society become too acclimated to "non-profits" suckling at the taxpayers' teat

Eyeroll

I don't think scoffing at concerns about corruption/incompetence in NGOs is effective. You yourself seem to have had some experience with this stuff ("It was painful to have barely enough money to cover the trainings we were doing because half of our budget went to the DC-based impact assessment team (at $200K per year salaries)...").

20 hours ago, Zosimus said:

Quote

Is there a way to improve the situation? Devolve funding of these groups to the various states, who may be, in the aggregate, more adept at providing oversight and improving accountability for private expenditures of public funds?

Devolve funding of these groups to the various people who may be, in the aggregate, protesting too much about federal funding.

Yes. The federal government was never supposed to be the voracious behemoth it has become. Return the power to the states, and to the people, and see what they do.

20 hours ago, Zosimus said:

How about an apples-to-apples comparison of the Church's charitable/humanitarian/philanthropic expenditures as compared to USAID?

Not sure that's possible. But sure! I think the Church's efforts are far more effective than USAID's.

See, e.g., here: Church finances: Presiding Bishopric offers unique look inside financial operations of growing faith

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.”

See, I think USAID is massively corrupt, pretty much root and stem. Money is, as per usual, the primary source of the rot, but politicking, favors, graft, and other factors are also in play (which is how we arrive at stupidities like "$47,000 for a 'transgender opera' in Colombia," and "$32,000 for a 'transgender comic book' in Peru" being part of USAID's "humanitarian" efforts).

20 hours ago, Zosimus said:

I think the critics on this board that disparage the rainy day fund would be satisfied if the Church funded the most critical USAID projects this year

I think they would, too. They are mighty free with other people's money. Indeed, that is how USAID has become so corrupt.

20 hours ago, Zosimus said:

I hear Ensign Peak Fund is up to $50 billion (with a b) this year. That's due to the good fortune of owning a lot of booming billionaire tech bro stocks.

It's "due to" a lot more than that. The faithful Saints being willing to - as you frame it - "step up." The leaders of the Church maintaining sound financial principles (avoiding debt, establishing and building up reserves, making sound investments through EPA and other for-profit ventures, etc.). Our critics think this is terrible. I think it's great.

20 hours ago, Zosimus said:

by the way, USAID's annual budget also happens to be $50 billion

I think all Americans should, as you put it, "step up," not just the Latter-day Saints.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 6, 2025 by smac97

smac97 · February 6, 2025

37 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Isn't the 990 the trigger for an entity appearing in your research list? Church's do not file a Form 990. But I see other religious organization which mean I think, they have other charitable or some other activity that falls outside the exemption that churches have from filing the Form 990.

Good point. However, it still appears that the Church does not seek government funding for its humanitarian efforts. I haven't been able to find anything to that effect. Any information you have would be appreciated.

Thanks,

-Smac

smac97 · February 6, 2025

12 hours ago, Dario_M said:

Why does the church needs to be funded by the government?

It doesn't. I am glad of that.

12 hours ago, Dario_M said:

The church has already so much money.

Yes, because of the generosity of the Saints, and because the leaders of the Church are making good - even excellent - financial decisions on behalf of the Church.

12 hours ago, Dario_M said:

I believe that the government can better spend their money on people who are homeless.

Okay.

12 hours ago, Dario_M said:

Or people who don't have healtcare insurance but still need to go to the hospital because of health problems, and without help they will get in extreme debts. Etc.

The State has an important role to play in this stuff, to be sure.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 6, 2025 by smac97

Teancum · February 6, 2025

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

1. As a Latter-day Saint, I have never really bothered to think about whether the Church seeks or receives federal funding for its charitable/humanitarian/philanthropic endeavors. It appears that the Church does not seek or receive such assistance from the federal government. Do you think the Church should be requesting/receiving such funding?

I am neutral on this. I guess if congress allocated $ then for faith based charities (I do not know the history of such an approach but I do recall George W Bush was a big advocate of such) then why not. On the other hand, there may be strings attached and as your notes indicated, the church really does have a lot of income and the emphasis on tithing gives it a big step up over other faiths when it comes to $$. Plus the church has become a shrewd investor and deploys very little to none of it so called rainy day fund for humanitarian relief.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

2. I have also never really bothered to think about whether other religious groups or affiliated entities seek/receive federal funding for charitable/humanitarian/philanthropic endeavors. Do you think other churches and affiliated groups should be requesting/receiving such funding? (Also, is the above summary from ChatGPT accurate?)

Don't know about ChatGPT and accuracy. I don't use it but it seems clear that you like to use it because your posting lately uses it excessively, which is fine I guess. In my tax practice we use another AI tool that is pretty darn good for tax law questions but I do need to check it because it has been wrong. As for other churches, if the money is there, sure use it. The thing to debate is whether the federal government should use $ for such purposes.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

3. How much oversight do you think the federal government exercises in the public monies sent to these churches and affiliated groups?

I do not know. My firm has a large audit practice and we audit a lot of NYS agencies. One agency is an oversight committee of fund NY disperses to NFPs. We audit the money trail to make sure the $ is used by the NFP as they outlined in the grant request. I do not think the federal government uses outside auditors or not. My guess is they do not though they may have internal auditors.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

4. Is it fair to surmises that faith-based charitable efforts, such as those funded with taxpayer money, are generally more effective than programs directly administered by the federal government?

I don't know that is necessarily the case. Based on your comments in your OP you seem pretty negative about government agencies being effective and refer to them as corrupt which on a macro level is nonsense. It seems to me that faith bases initiatives can be very effective at least from my experience with a few.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

5. Should the federal government be sending taxpayer monies to any 501(c)(3) entities, regardless of religious affiliation? I'm sure there are thousands of non-religious 501(c)(3) groups dedicated to worthwhile charitable/humanitarian/philanthropic efforts.

This is one I wrestle with in general. I think over the past hundred years personal charity and assistance may have declined and government has filled the void. And it may be because government has done more that personal efforts have dropped. The rise of government social programs and such seems to have grown out of the depression era and Franklin Roosevelt's new deal. We could debate for a long time the pros and cons of the results of the New Deal as well as other federal programs to aid and assist US persons in a variety of ways. One thing is certain. From the 1940s to probably around 2000 the socioeconomic well being of US citizens rose faster and more dramatically than ever before. That seems to have stalled now. The question is how much of that rise was due to the many government programs and agencies that arose from that era. I do not know the answer to that questoin.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

6. Is it too late to substantially alter this state of affairs? Have we as a society become too acclimated to "non-profits" suckling at the taxpayers' teat, such that to withdraw federal funding would be catastrophic for 501(c)(3) groups involved in providing important, even vital, charitable/humanitarian/philanthropic services?

I think it would be difficult. But we are watching the current administration do all in its power to eliminate much of this and much of what they are doing seems unconstitutional at best and illegal at worst. I think you would and will see a lot of pain and suffering as a result and even death of some people.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

7. Is there a way to improve the situation? Devolve funding of these groups to the various states, who may be, in the aggregate, more adept at providing oversight and improving accountability for private expenditures of public funds?

I have heard it said that all politics are local so maybe yes moving to more on the state and local level may be good. But how do we do that? And to poorer states suffer. It is pretty clear that a lot of blue states like mine send more money to red states than visa versa. NY gets much less of the fed $ we pay back then say Mississippi or Kentucky. Kill the dept of education and let's see how some of those poor states already behind in education fair.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

8. Quite a few of the critics of the Church on this board regularly disparage the Church for not spending enough of its own money (whether donations from members, or earnings on invested reserves, or both) on charitable/humanitarian/philanthropic efforts. Is there a way to get an apples-to-apples comparison of the Church's charitable/humanitarian/philanthropic expenditures (again, of its own money) as compared to the charitable/humanitarian/philanthropic expenditures of other religious groups (and their own money, in contrast with taxpayer-funded grants from the federal government)?

I don't know. Why does it matter in this discussion?

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

9. Same question as above, only as to non-religious 501(c)(3)s.

10. Out of curiosity, I posed the following question to ChatGPT: "How is it that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is able to avoid relying on federal grants, whereas other religious groups rely heavily on them?" Here is the response:

It seems like the Church's independence - that is, it's decision to not seek/receive taxpayer money - is something that some (many? most?) of our critics would find to be a good idea. However, the Church's capacity to not seek/receive taxpayer money appears to arise mostly because of the Church's substantial financial reserves and overall financial strategies, which some (many? most?) of our critics frequently criticize. Thoughts?

I think the ChatGPT answer was spot on.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

11. I asked a follow-up question of ChatGPT (re: the above result from ChatGPT) : "Why do other these other religious groups 'lack an independent funding model like the LDS Church'?"

The response:

The Church is financially stable, has strong long-term financial strategies and viability, and has extensive charitable/humanitarian/philanthropic efforts, and does not seek or receive taxpayer money. And the Church is able to be in this situation because it does things our critics dislike: tithing, invested reserves, financial centralization, non-reliance on government subsidization, and so on. Might our critics, then, be a bit off-base overall?

I think you misconstrue the critics argument here.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

12. I am ambivalent about religious groups being funded by the federal government.

I am concerned that religious people have effectively "outsourced" their charitable obligations to the State, which forcibly taxes the citizenry and then sends some of that back to religious groups to fund important charitable/humanitarian/philanthropic efforts. Because taxes are compulsory, this diminishes the connection we can and should have with each other through more voluntary forms of service.

I also think that religious groups "getting into bed" with the federal government can create all sorts of problems (most of which, thankfully, the Church has been able to avoid by retaining its financial independence).

I think there is substantial risk of inefficiencies, corruption, etc. in the non-profit sector.

The federal government is a massively overbuilt, incompetent, inefficient, corrupt bureaucracy. As problematic as the non-profit sector is, I think having the federal government try to administer charitable/humanitarian/philanthropic efforts would be a disaster.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think your last sentence is to much of a generalization. It may be accurate in some cases and it is not in other cases. Governments not a business and should not be run like a business. Pure profit motives can ruin things that should not be in the for profit arena. The idea of privatizing many government services seem like recipe for disaster IMO.

Teancum · February 6, 2025

16 hours ago, Zosimus said:

Wouldn't it be something if the Church took over supporting all the critical life-saving government-funded projects that were de-funded last week?

IMO churches should be requesting/receiving funding from the following, in order: 1. private donors, 2. corporations, 3. other churches. If those three don't donate enough, then you the burden falls to the taxpayers.

For example, Elon Musk and Donald Trump could step up and fund the medical clinics in refugee camps that they shut down. After all, people are already starting to die from their decisions and that number is likely to go up (source). If private donors, corporations and churches don't have solutions to resolve the consequences of their decisions, then the taxpayers will again be stuck with the responsibility of keeping people alive.

Maybe Trump could sell all his $TRUMP memecoins (aka illegal securities) and replace USAID this year. At its peak, the FDV of $TRUMP meme coin was $75 billion (with a b), that's $25 billion more than USAID's budget.

I worked on multiple USAID project's over the past decades. They outsource the oversight, and they usually hire very talented and expensive American-based teams. From my experience, it was the baseline surveying, impact assessing and policy analyzing that had to be sent to USAID every quarter that ended up costing more in time and money than the boots-on-the-ground work. It was painful to have barely enough money to cover the trainings we were doing because half of our budget went to the DC-based impact assessment team (at $200K per year salaries) so they could decide whether or not those of us living and working in the camps for $5 an hour (or volunteering for no dollars an hour) weren't spending too much 🙄

I imagine the reporting that will need to be done to DOGE going forward to assure all projects satisfy the new America First policy requirements will be exhaustive and expensive. The outfits that get paid to do this will make a killing off the American taxpayer's back. Actually I'm calling it now, Elon Musk's data team will be doing the assessments from now on, and they'll charge the projects double for it. Or maybe Musk and Thiel can automate it, and all we need to do is give all US Treasury payment data to Palantir

Palantir CEO Alex Karp says DOGE is a 'revolution' and 'some people are going to get their heads cut off'

'Elon Musk’s DOGE Is ‘Very Good’ for Palantir, Says CEO Alex Karp

These tech bros now making decisions for the federal government know exactly what they are doing, and we're all falling for it. Poison the USAID/501c3 well and reallocate all federal funds to "more efficient" administrators. And guess who that's going to be. From the frying pan into the fire

From what I've seen, faith-based projects are some of the best out there because so many of the staffers approach their work with the same zeal that Mormons might approach their missions.

Governments should only fund 501c3s when private individuals with surplus resources (eg the tech bro billionaires that had no problem giving Trump hundreds of millions) don't step up. Governments should only fund 501c3s when private corporations like Tesla and Trump-owned company, CIC Digital LLC (the one holding all of Trump's billions of dollars in memecoin value) don't step up. Governments should only fund 501c3s when churches with billions of dollars in rainy-day funds don't step up.

In other words, the government has no choice but to fund 501c3s, because billionaires, private corporations and churches aren't.

Eyeroll

Devolve funding of these groups to the various people who may be, in the aggregate, protesting too much about federal funding. If they don't step up to support the projects that keep people alive, then give it back to the taxpayers. And tell those that protest too much about it to jump in a lake

How about an apples-to-apples comparison of the Church's charitable/humanitarian/philanthropic expenditures as compared to USAID?

I think the critics on this board that disparage the rainy day fund would be satisfied if the Church funded the most critical USAID projects this year

I hear Ensign Peak Fund is up to $50 billion (with a b) this year. That's due to the good fortune of owning a lot of booming billionaire tech bro stocks.

by the way, USAID's annual budget also happens to be $50 billion

Could be that many of them feel investing tithing funds in tech bro stocks and sitting on the profits might be a bad look

Great summary and well said. And I think EPA is well over $100 billion.

Teancum · February 6, 2025

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Good point. However, it still appears that the Church does not seek government funding for its humanitarian efforts. I haven't been able to find anything to that effect. Any information you have would be appreciated.

Thanks,

-Smac

No I do not and I agree that the church does not receive federal funding. At least not that I am aware of.

manol · February 6, 2025

18 hours ago, Zosimus said:

Wouldn't it be something if the Church took over supporting all the critical life-saving government-funded projects that were de-funded last week?

That would be an amazing winning move, both from a humanitarian and from a missionary standpoint.

Can you imagine the positive publicity that would generate?

And how powerful that would be if other churches join in?

I tried to find a way online to contact Church leadership because I think this is an idea worth passing along, and apparently there are no online contact avenues open to non-members. Apparently I would have to log in to the Church's website and that's not something I can do.

Edited February 6, 2025 by manol

Calm · February 6, 2025

59 minutes ago, manol said:

That would be an amazing winning move, both from a humanitarian and from a missionary standpoint.

Can you imagine the positive publicity that would generate?

And how powerful that would be if other churches join in?

I tried to find a way online to contact Church leadership because I think this is an idea worth passing along, and apparently there are no online contact avenues open to non-members. Apparently I would have to log in to the Church's website and that's not something I can do.

They have the comments turned off on the FB profiles? Not surprising because it would be a full time job to keep track of them.

I would have thought the Come Unto Christ had a form for contact besides asking for missionaries

manol · February 6, 2025

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

They have the comments turned off on the FB profiles? Not surprising because it would be a full time job to keep track of them.

I'm not on Facebook so I didn't think of that.

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

I would have thought the Come Unto Christ had a form for contact besides asking for missionaries

Not that I can see.

I just called the Church Office Building and left a phone message with what I think was the Church's humanitarian department.

Edited February 6, 2025 by manol

Doctor Steuss · February 6, 2025

As a side note (and some may find this interesting -- I did), the Church seems to refuse federal funds, even when they've been pre-allocated.

Deseret News Article on BYU's Decision

PDF DIRECT DOWNLOAD WARNING - Department of Education Allocations

Calm · February 6, 2025

18 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

As a side note (and some may find this interesting -- I did), the Church seems to refuse federal funds, even when they've been pre-allocated.

Deseret News Article on BYU's Decision

PDF DIRECT DOWNLOAD WARNING - Department of Education Allocations

Were students able to use those funds allocated to them or would they have been sent to the University and therefore likely weren’t? Anyone know?

I used a Pell Grant for BYU my last year (previous years parents earned too much and I was a dependent, so not an option or I definitely would have). I know many others did as well. So some federal funds made their way to BYU indirectly.

Edited February 6, 2025 by Calm

Doctor Steuss · February 6, 2025

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Were students able to use those funds allocated to them or would they have been sent to the University and therefore likely weren’t? Anyone know?

I used a Pell Grant for BYU my last year (previous years parents earned too much and I was a dependent, so not an option or I definitely would have). I know many others did as well. So some federal funds made their way to BYU indirectly.

I believe the CARES Act disbursed directly to Universities and schools, who were then in charge of how the funds were used from there. So unless a school accepted the funds, individual students couldn't utilize them in any way. It sounds like the BYUs essentially self-funded their own emergency aid for students during the pandemic.

Good point about FAFSA. Hadn't thought of that.

Edited February 6, 2025 by Doctor Steuss

The Nehor · February 6, 2025

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

What "critical life-saving government-funded projects that were de-funded last week" are you referencing here?

From this article:

And here:

I think we are only a few days into what will be a very long examination of USAID, the expenditure of funds, corruption, graft, and so on.

This sounds good. I wonder what is keeping religious groups from doing this now.

This is concerning, but it seems to conflict with the statement from Sec. Rubio above.

I don't understand. What "decisions" are you referencing here? What "consequences"?

I think there is massive corruption, waste and incompetence in the NGO and "humanitarian relief" industries. I think we have only seen the first inklings of the rot, and the worst is yet to come. See, e.g., here: What Is USAID and Can the President Abolish It?

I dislike politicized hyperbole, but having read a large number of articles detailing what USAID has been up to, and how it has been behaving for years and years and years, I think the situation is pretty serious.

I question how much of this should fall within the rubric of USAID, as opposed to the Department of State.

Some examples of USAID-funded (that is, funded by American taxpayers) projects: In 'waste' of money, USAID channeled vast sums for DEI, LGBTQ programs: White House

It appears USAID has spent many years refusing to disclose any of this information, and I think the worst is yet to come.

Hmm. Perhaps a substantial restructuring is in order, so that fatcats in DC get less money, and needy overseas folks get more assistance.

Apparently USAID has not only been corrupt and incompetent, but also secretive and intransigent, refusing to cooperate with congressional inquiries about where the money has been going.

Sadly, the culture of cooperation runs deep in the international humanitarian relief industry. Indeed, I think this is a big part of why the Church is so cautious and circumspect in its humanitarian efforts, as it recognizes - and does not want to contribute to - the corruption. The Church has "boots on the ground" folks (senior missionaries and such) who, unlike some (many?) USAID bureaucrats and NGO shysters, are typically not driven by financial/political/self-dealing motives, and who instead are interested in making sure that the Church's money is well-spent. It slows things down, but avoiding the endemic corruption in the industry is a pretty important facet of humanitarian relief.

I hope so.

Two thoughts:

First, why just the "billionaires"? Shouldn't ordinary Americans also "step up"?

Second, I think addressing issues of corruption and incompetence within NGOs should precede or accompany discussions of funding them. The rot is wide and deep.

Your identification of parties who should "step up" is interesting.

Perhaps the responsibility for humanitarian/philanthropic relief should be returned to the people.

I don't think scoffing at concerns about corruption/incompetence in NGOs is effective. You yourself seem to have had some experience with this stuff ("It was painful to have barely enough money to cover the trainings we were doing because half of our budget went to the DC-based impact assessment team (at $200K per year salaries)...").

Yes. The federal government was never supposed to be the voracious behemoth it has become. Return the power to the states, and to the people, and see what they do.

Not sure that's possible. But sure! I think the Church's efforts are far more effective than USAID's.

See, e.g., here: Church finances: Presiding Bishopric offers unique look inside financial operations of growing faith

See, I think USAID is massively corrupt, pretty much root and stem. Money is, as per usual, the primary source of the rot, but politicking, favors, graft, and other factors are also in play (which is how we arrive at stupidities like "$47,000 for a 'transgender opera' in Colombia," and "$32,000 for a 'transgender comic book' in Peru" being part of USAID's "humanitarian" efforts).

I think they would, too. They are mighty free with other people's money. Indeed, that is how USAID has become so corrupt.

It's "due to" a lot more than that. The faithful Saints being willing to - as you frame it - "step up." The leaders of the Church maintaining sound financial principles (avoiding debt, establishing and building up reserves, making sound investments through EPA and other for-profit ventures, etc.). Our critics think this is terrible. I think it's great.

I think all Americans should, as you put it, "step up," not just the Latter-day Saints.

Thanks,

-Smac

Just swallow that propaganda. Oh yeah, that is the good stuff.

Calm · February 6, 2025

Oops

Edited February 6, 2025 by Calm

Calm · February 6, 2025

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

the culture of cooperation runs deep in the international humanitarian relief industry.

I would hope so.

Calm · February 6, 2025

For accuracy purposes, it wasn’t USAid paying for the transgender opera.

It was the Department of State which has a different mission than USAid.

The amount was also $25,000.

Not saying it was a good use of funding as I would never have approved it. I am not thrilled about using taxpayer money to fund art projects and spaces outside of important memorials and making government buildings modestly attractive without spending too much, even the art projects with social implications I support. Just saying they didn’t take food from little kids’ mouths to fund any opera. I think art in general is too niche, a very limited audience in most cases. Art is something imo that should be funded by private donors with very few exceptions as much as I believe it has great, great value in our lives.

When you are making accusations of corruption, etc, it is very important to keep the accusation accurate whether it’s an individual or an agency, imo.

https://www.usaspending.gov/award/ASST_NON_SCO20021GR3086_1900

Given the error on the opera, I want to see the documentation on funding for the comic book before accepting it was a USAID project. I am skeptical.

Edited February 6, 2025 by Calm

Government Funding of Religious/501(c)(3) Charities / Social Services

Recommended Posts

ChatGPT said:

How The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Avoids Federal Grants While Other Religious Groups Rely on Them

1️⃣ The LDS Church’s Self-Funded Model

A. Strong Financial Independence from Tithing & Investments

2️⃣ Theological & Philosophical Approach to Charity

3️⃣ Why Other Religious Groups Rely on Federal Grants

A. Lack of a Large Independent Financial Base

B. Government Partnerships in Faith-Based Initiatives

C. No Restriction on Accepting Government Money

4️⃣ LDS Church: A Rare Exception Among Religious Groups

1️⃣ Tithing Practices & Financial Culture

A. The LDS Church Has Mandatory, Universal Tithing

2️⃣ Church-Owned Businesses & Investment Reserves

A. The LDS Church Owns Profitable Businesses & a Large Investment Portfolio

3️⃣ Church Welfare & Charity Model

A. The LDS Church Funds Charity Internally Instead of Seeking Grants

4️⃣ Government Partnership & Federal Grants

A. Other Religious Groups Depend on Government Grants for Social Programs

5️⃣ Cultural & Structural Differences

A. The LDS Church’s Centralized Financial Structure

Conclusion: Why Other Religious Groups Rely on Federal Grants While the LDS Church Does Not

Is There Evidence of Financial Mismanagement or Abuse in USAID?

Is It True That Only 10% of USAID's Funding Goes to People in Need?

Recently Browsing 0 members