- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
The title for Curt’s post is: An Unemotional Analysis… yet all of us who responded, myself included, are reacting emotionally to some degree. I don’t think we can help ourselves. My wife & I can’t talk about our
own finances without emotions rising to the top. Would we get as emotional about this topic if the church
was more open to the membership about how our offering were used, or invested?
This is an interesting article:
http://www.ldsliving.com/The-Unexpected-Way-the-Church-Responded-to-a-Blackmail-Attempt/s/80449 It deals with how the church dealt with a blackmail attempt. As a result, the church was more open about what the interior of the temple looks like. The public response seems to be positive over the years. The cult like perception seems to have dissipated to some degree.
Maybe a similar reaction would occur if the financial records were open. It seems to me that there would be a more positive missionary
impact that would occur too.
Minyan Man wrote:
The title for Curt’s post is: An Unemotional Analysis… yet all of us who responded, myself included, arereacting emotionally to some degree. I don’t think we can help ourselves. My wife & I can’t talk about our
own finances without emotions rising to the top. Would we get as emotional about this topic if the church
was more open to the membership about how our offering were used, or invested?
This is an interesting article:
http://www.ldsliving.com/The-Unexpected-Way-the-Church-Responded-to-a-Blackmail-Attempt/s/80449 It deals with how the church dealt with a blackmail attempt. As a result, the church was more open about what the interior of the temple looks like. The public response seems to be positive over the years. The cult like perception seems to have dissipated to some degree.
Maybe a similar reaction would occur if the financial records were open. It seems to me that there would be a more positive missionary
impact that would occur too.
That’s pretty neat! I didn’t know that occurred. It is interesting like you say – we all acted emotionally to this story. Despite the title of the OP. I think it would be a good idea for the church to be more open about their finances. It would benefit the church in the long run. One could simply ask – what would Jesus do?
I don’t know what’s so bad about emotions, they serve a purpose. It’s helpful to understand the root of what produces our emotions and put them into perspective. After all, emotions can interfere with analysis in both directions. People can rush to the
defenseof the church before they’ve processed facts. I think the title of the thread could be translated as: analysis of the whistleblower’s claims independent of the emotions that are interwoven with the subject of tithing.
I think most people have concluded that the whistleblower’s claim of illegal behavior probably doesn’t have legs but legalities aside, the whistleblower opened up the conversation. Members haven’t had a view into church finances, now they have some small view, however inaccurate that view may be.
If the scope of the thread is limited to “does the whistleblower have a case?” perhaps we could create a new thread to discuss the moral implications of the church’s wealth.
it just seems a little hypocritical to me. The leaders teach to pay tithing above all else and rely on the lord to provide. To exercise faith that you will be taken care of. But sitting on a hoard of money seems opposite of that. If the leaders lived by faith they would funnel that money back into some worthwhile endeavors every year. Then rely on the lord to provide for the future. I can imagine that would seem scary for the leaders to rely completely on the lord to provide, but that is exactly what they ask us to do. Cadence wrote:
it just seems a little hypocritical to me. The leaders teach to pay tithing above all else and rely on the lord to provide. To exercise faith that you will be taken care of. But sitting on a hoard of money seems opposite of that. If the leaders lived by faith they would funnel that money back into some worthwhile endeavors every year. Then rely on the lord to provide for the future. I can imagine that would seem scary for the leaders to rely completely on the lord to provide, but that is exactly what they ask us to do.
Plus you are required to (at least claim to) be a full and honest tithe payer to enter the temple, attend byu schools and get employment with church owned businesses.
No, Cadence, the church leaders teach us to work, and save for hard times, and stay out of debt, and get as much education as possible, etc. They don’t teach consecration in practical terms; they teach tithing and Fast Offerings. They couch it in terms of exercising faith and/or relying on the Lord, but they don’t frame it as give everything away and rely on blessings to sustain. It is the classic faith AND works concept. The amount is one thing. I would say it is open to criticism or acceptance. The approach is another thing entirely. I see no hypocrisy whatsoever in the actions – especially since they are paying a generous tithing into the investment portfolio (the report says 14%), in a very real way, with faith that the Lord will multiply the offering.
Again, whether the Lord is involved or not is open to disagreement, but they literally are doing what they tell the members to do.
My big annoyance is that they got rid of paid janitors and even our church psychologist here, both of whom did a lot of good. (I saw that shrink – he was the best I’ve ever come across.)… And did so due to supposed budget cuts. And it’s not as if the money isn’t there. I think that is the biggest issue for me, as well. It isn’t the amount of the portfolio; it is the “little” stuff that feels like nickel and diming in some cases. I understand and admire frugality; I have a harder time with things that seem miserly.
I confess I did not read everything up to this point, but based on the first few pages I read, and Curt’s analysis, I have the following thoughts. 1. As a priesthood leader/Welfare Committee member at one time, I found the leaders to be rather tight-fisted about money. I realize you have to be careful with disbursing welfare monies, and that people will take advantage of free resources if you let them — often without doing their part. But I still found the church to be rather tight-fisted on many counts. The huge wealth of the church bothers me in the light of this.
2. I personally have been let down by the church in my moment of need multiple times. Once when I needed help getting on a mission, and once with following through on an adoption (for which I was paying), and once when I needed access to counseling for church-related depression. For the latter, they were just too busy to see me about my problem = not enough counselors. It makes it hard to give liberally to a cause that is awash in cash but can’t seem to reciprocate on matters that are at the heart of its mission.
3. I am not ready for retirement, and have long found it hard to justify to give away 10% (suggested retirement savings is 15% of your income for life) leaving me insufficient funds to fund my own basic necessities when I age, and when again, the church isn’t there for me when I have had legitimate needs in the past. And when the church doesn’t really need my sacrifice.
4. When active, I have always been a very strong contributor, so I have not been a benchwarmer until I hit my commitment crisis. I don’t feel badly about not contributing much.
5. I have aging parents running out of money, and they come first. Before a church with such large assets.
5. The article we are discussing only confirms that the church really does not need my money. I don’t buy the arguments that I need to give away my wealth as I earn it — for my own spirituality. I want emotional stability and inner peace. And I don’t care what people say, knowing you have enough money to fund health problems, unemployment, Social Security payments drying up etcetera is a source of peace for me. Being completely exposed to the consequences of such things hurts inner peace and requires mental gymnastics and great emotional effort to produce peace. And there are enough emotional problems to deal with let alone temporal worry that comes from simply not having money to fund your basic needs!
So, for now I think the church will have to limp along without my retirement savings.
I confess two things: 1) I didn’t read all the comments that came before, and 2) today it occurred to me that I’ve been off the grid mostly (due to some health issues), but I didn’t mean to totally disappear. I’m back! On this topic, I have a lot of things to say, so here goes:
1) I remember the Church’s insolvent days in the 70s, although I was a kid then, but the Church was definitely not in the same position it is now, and some of that change is certainly laudable. Let’s start with that in mind. These aren’t the Kirtland Bankers at the helm. This is some savvy management.
2) Some of that turnaround was dependent on strong-arm tactics that didn’t exist back in the day: making tithing a requirement (through the TR recommend) to be in good standing and to be eligible for callings, BYU attendance, working for the Church, and so forth; focusing on paying on gross vs. net (or better yet “surplus” like it says in the D&C); requiring those receiving welfare assistance to also pay full tithing despite the fact that it’s not what the D&C says and it’s a regressive tax; placing greater limits (e.g. time limits, bureaucracy) on welfare assistance; reducing ward budgets to extreme levels (although in the 70s, these were through direct member donations, not from Church HQ) by relying on un-reimbursed member labor and goods & services that are unreported (this includes things like youth trips members just pay for, food for parties that aren’t reimbursed, and janitorial work performed by members).
3) It isn’t that easy to spend $100B well on charitable endeavors. It takes planning and about $10B just to make it happen. I get that.
4) Given the mentality, I don’t trust the Church to make great decisions about how to spend that money, if at all. The statement that they are hoarding it for the second coming sounds utterly ludicrous to me (here, Jesus, we all chipped in and got you this gift card for $100B). Will the financial systems not collapse in this theoretical future? Will we actually need $100B then? What exactly is supposed to be the point of having a huge wad of cash vs. doing charitable works in anticipation? It sounds fine if you want to get the govt off your back to say that (because it’s a religious defense and therefore unassailable, but those of us in this religion have never heard that stockpiling money is a requirement to prepare for the second coming!)
Maybe we are stuck in a corporate mindset. Corporations are people, my friend, as Mitt Romney said, but what he didn’t say is that if corporations are people, those people are psychopaths because their only motive is to increase how much money they make. That’s the measure of success, not the good they do in the world.
But I think it’s more likely that we are in the mindset of people who survived the depression. Now that we have money, we can’t help but wash and reuse our tin foil “just in case.” It’s nearly impossible to get people in this frame of mind to realize that they probably went too far to get where they are. We should create a way to really pay your tithing on surplus (after living expenses) using a form people can fill out to assess their extra. That would eliminate it being a regressive tax on the poor. We should also find a way to quit blackmailing Church members who don’t have a TR, to find a way to actually let people be in the Church without one, even while encouraging them to have one. Can’t we make the temple a carrot rather than a stick? By doing it the way we do it, we aren’t creating moral reasons to comply. We are just forcing people’s hand.
hawkgrrrl wrote:
But I think it’s more likely that we are in the mindset of people who survived the depression. Now that we have money, we can’t help but wash and reuse our tin foil “just in case.” It’s nearly impossible to get people in this frame of mind to realize that they probably went too far to get where they are.
I do think this is part of it. I would say that if they would have been disclosing even at a high level, they probably would have gotten some of the feedback even from TBM members that this may need to be brought under control. Now it has had yet another weight on some people’s shelves that top leadership can’t always be trusted. And from the book “Bridges” and “The Next Mormons”, that loss of trust of the leaders is a huge issue. It is still the main issue I have.Old Timer wrote:
I still am bothered enough by the claim of the size of the Church’s investment assets that I am continuing to consider paying tithing on what I calculate as my “increase” (defining that as my “extra” income after I have paid my essential bills and living costs), but I am nowhere near dismayed anymore…The claim is that the Church receives about $7 billion per year in tithing. The claim is that $6 billion of that is used to run the church and all of its operational costs. The claim is that the remaining $1 billion per year is used to investand create the investment asset total – which is claimed to be $100 billion currently. Personally it wouldn’t surprise me at all if this report is accurate and they really do have over 100 billion in savings/investments. To me the fact that they spent billions on City Creek Mall and however much on a temple in Rome, etc. was already more than enough for me to feel confident that they already have way more money than they know what to do with. If anything surprised me about this report it’s the claim that they actually spend as much of the tithing as they do according to this. I would have guessed that they were saving/investing most of it mostly because of having unpaid clergy at the local level. But, on closer inspection, it makes sense that things like the BYUs and other Church shools, the CES, building and maintaining chapels, stake centers, temples, etc., paying mission presidents, GAs, and for many missions, subsidizing worldwide operations outside the US and Canada where the tithing received is much less, etc. could really start to add up in terms of the overall costs.
However, I don’t really see the savings/investments as something malicious, motivated by pure greed, etc. The way I look at it is simply that the Church started emphasizing tithing more as an expected requirement to be a faithful member and interpreting it as based on income in 1899 and again in the 1960s-1970s at times when they really were hurting for money, but once the tradition was established it sort of took on a life of its own. So the leaders continue to preach tithing mostly the same way they always have largely thinking it is for members’ own good and that they will be blessed for faithfully obeying this commandment. Meanwhile now that average salaries have continually increased (even if not necessarily enough to make up for inflation) the net result of this is a significant amount of left over money that the Church leaders don’t really know what to do with, so it looks like they don’t really do anything with it other than saving it and investing it for a rainy day so to speak. There’s nothing all that unusual about that by itself.
As far as not disclosing how much they receive and how it is spent I suspect this is mostly because they think it wouldn’t be faith promoting and it is easier for many members to faithfully pay tithing year-after-year if they feel like it is going to a good cause than it would be if they knew so much of it was actually just ending up as more stocks, real estate, business investments, etc. for a church that already has so much compared to other churches. My main complaint about this besides them continuing to teach tithing as a percentage of income in the first place which I don’t really expect to change anytime soon is that they refused to continue to use some of this available money to pay janitors and are asking members to spend their limited free time scrubbing toilets and such mostly because they know some members will do this if asked to. Just because you can get away with something that doesn’t mean you should.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:
I don’t really expect to change anytime soon is that they refused to continue to use some of this available money to pay janitors and are asking members to spend their limited free time scrubbing toilets and such mostly because they know some members will do this if asked to. Just because you can get away with something that doesn’t mean you should.
The official reason for the janitor change was to help the members feel more connection and ownership towards the buildings. However, I strongly suspect that the reasons for the change was because of the difficulties complying with employment laws and OSHA requirements in such isolated and difficult to monitor working conditions. If you make your janitors volunteers then that largely goes away. In short, I think the janitorial decision had more to do with the hassle than with the money.
Roy wrote:
DevilsAdvocate wrote:
I don’t really expect to change anytime soon is that they refused to continue to use some of this available money to pay janitors and are asking members to spend their limited free time scrubbing toilets and such mostly because they know some members will do this if asked to. Just because you can get away with something that doesn’t mean you should.
The official reason for the janitor change was to help the members feel more connection and ownership towards the buildings. However, I strongly suspect that the reasons for the change was because of the difficulties complying with employment laws and OSHA requirements in such isolated and difficult to monitor working conditions. If you make your janitors volunteers then that largely goes away. In short, I think the janitorial decision had more to do with the hassle than with the money.
That’s a reasonable argument, and could be. It was likely a combination of things. Having far fewer employees in diverse areas with varying laws is undoubtedly a benefit. A possible solution is to do what they did with other building maintenance activities (like mowing and snow plowing) – contract it out. Even in my rural area there are at least two companies that provide cleaning services to businesses that come to mind.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.