- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I will try not to spend too much time on my soapbox. nibbler wrote:
I can only speak for myself but the local ward experience is anemic. When it comes to the local experience, corporate church is pinching every penny as hard as they possibly that it’s left nothing but sun-bleached bones in the desert.
I was explaining to 15 year old Roy Jr. why it is that the LDS church seems to have an aversion for spending for youth activities. He attends Wednesdays instead at our local Methodist church that has a youth pastor, feeds the kids every Wednesday, has a fun and well organized activity/game (that often involves purchased supplies), and a good message.
I tell him that I think it goes back to organizational and cultural issues for the LDS church. A youth pastor is an employee dedicated to put on a good program. They will have access to a budget and will know how much money they can spend annually. Contrast this with the LDS church where the youth leaders are conscripted volunteers. When the LDS Youth Leaders want to spend money on the youth program they do so from their own money and then ask for a reimbursement check. They do not know how much money might be allocated in the ward budget for the youth program and would have no idea if they are underspending. I think that organizationally and culturally, nobody sees underspending as a problem.
In summary, it really is nobody’s fault that the LDS youth program is lame.
I appreciate the recognition of my conundrum about the church preaching lofty values at church and then behaving like any other business when its faced with tradeoffs between such values and business imperatives. The kind of behavior the SEC has exposed is another case in point. I would like to offer some reflections on comments so far.
First, I agree that if the Church has so much money it feels the need to engage in asset hiding, then it should be using those funds to benefit members and society as a whole. I can think of many uses…expand access to LDS social services, for example. The comment above about expanded ward budgets is another. Lessening the financial burden of paying for a mission for young adult converts is another. The church could use excess funds for helping charitable causes that align with our values…not only to ease human suffering, but to help restore its reputation among mainstream religious observers.
Second, reducing the tithing burden to surplus after expenses makes sense. To address the concerns about hard financial times in the future, the church could always present the tithing on surplus concept as temporary with an unknown end date. It could be part of the revelation that the existing definition of tithing could be reinstated in times of financial need. The church has no compunction about asking members for over and above donations in my past wards to clear off fast offering deficits, or fund temples…why can’t we also rely on this method should the church have a rainy day, keeping only a reasonable financial reserve? Why can’t the church rely on God to provide in rainy day situations the same way it encourages the members to do so in the payment of tithes when money is tight?
I am sorry but I have a REALLY hard time giving over my own percent of gross or net to an organization that I consider to have been so tight-fisted when members I know seem to have had valid needs (and not just welfare-related) in the past. I have lots of examples.
I also want to add how disappointed I am that the highest church leaders resorted to plausible deniability in this SEC situation. It bothers me how leaders are revered and considered inspired when things go well. But when things don’t go well they write it off as simply following legal advice or have other excuses to lessen their own culpability.
I saw this article by Benjamin Park in Salon. It gives a rather balanced but brief history of the financial past of the church and also how we got to the current situation. The following part was new to me.
Quote:By 1907, Snow’s successor, Joseph F. Smith, jubilantly announced that tithing income had paid off all the church’s loans. He even predicted that if the current rate continued, “we expect to see the day when we will not have to ask you for one dollar of donation for any purpose.”
Did this mean that JFS predicted a time when tithing would no longer be a requirement??? That would be interesting but I am not sure if that was what he meant. Maybe he was referring to the building fund for meetinghouses and temples that local congregations used to be responsible to raise funds for.
He said they won’t haveto. They still will, but they won’t haveto. :angel: Roy wrote:
I saw this article by Benjamin Park in Salon. It gives a rather balanced but brief history of the financial past of the church and also how we got to the current situation.The following part was new to me.
Quote:By 1907, Snow’s successor, Joseph F. Smith, jubilantly announced that tithing income had paid off all the church’s loans. He even predicted that if the current rate continued, “we expect to see the day when we will not have to ask you for one dollar of donation for any purpose.”
Did this mean that JFS predicted a time when tithing would no longer be a requirement??? That would be interesting but I am not sure if that was what he meant. Maybe he was referring to the building fund for meetinghouses and temples that local congregations used to be responsible to raise funds for.
Interesting quote. Perhaps at the time Smith did mean “any purpose” because that is what he said. My interpretation is closer to yours and that he probably meant other than tithing. I was a recent convert in the days when there were building and budget funds in addition to tithing, but I’m not sure when those things came into being. Were they a thing in 1907 or was there only tithing like now? I don’t see the church backing off or reducing tithing despite the hundreds of billions in reserve – partly because of how much they have tried and (apparently) still try to keep it so secret.
If you want to read the actual SEC order, you can use this link then click on “sec order” near the bottom of that page. https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2023-35 This issue bothered me greatly.
I think it’s a good idea to read the order itself. As I understand things, this cease and desist order was drafted by lawyers on both sides, agreeing to the details within the order. That is to say, top church leaders knew exactly what was going on, had annual meetings to discuss what was going on, and “signed off” on decisions that circumvented the law. EVEN IF top church leaders weren’t aware of the complicated SEC laws, they were certainly aware that these actions were designed to hide the investments, which seems antithetical to being honest in your dealings with your fellow man.
Additionally, the order agreement details WHO these top church leaders are– first presidency and presiding bishopric.
The level of deceit is too great for me to dismiss or swallow that “the matter is closed”. They (Ensign Peak Advisors and top church leaders) asked people to lie for them. To sign off on investments they had absolutely no control over, putting themselves at risk of prosecution. These people were chosen because they had common names that wouldn’t be easily linked to the church. THIS INFORMATION IS RIGHT THERE IN THE ORDER. THIS IS OUTRIGHT DECEPTION, is it not?
Also.. no tithing funds were used to pay the fine? They used investments returns. Ok. I believe that, but where did the church get the investment returns? From excess tithing that was invested. If it wasn’t for tithing, there would be no money to invest. This is money left over after all the bills have been paid, including all the expensive temples. The church does not borrow money, even against itself. It does not spend more than it takes in, which is great policy. It puts some aside for a rainy day, which is also good policy. It then invests this rainy day fund, which is also a good idea. There is SO MUCH excess nowadays, however, that the invested excess, even at modest returns, has become gargantuan. It’s a good problem to have, but it is very hard to have that much excess and still preach to members that they should give. Yes, they’ll say the church doesn’t need the money, but you need to give, because it’s a commandment and it’s the Lord’s money anyway.
Well, I believe it’s past time for the stewards of the lord’s money to do a better job with the excess.
What are the “missions” of the church? Redeem the dead? Wow, ok I see lots of temples being built. Proclaim the gospel? Ok, the Church is already subsidizing missions, what about subsidizing the whole thing or cutting the price of missions especially for lower income members? How about creating more service missions? What about paying folks to serve instead of getting loads of free labor? Still a drop in the bucket. Perfect the Saints? Expand ward budgets. Create better youth programs. Pay for services instead of expect them for free. What’s the 4th mission? Care for the poor and needy? They’re already doing that right? But omg, with the billions in reserve, the Church could really do some amazing things above and beyond what relatively little they currently spend on humanitarian aid.
I’ve decided that I’ll not give another dime to this church that has billions in excess. I’m all for helping then keep the lights on, but I feel the interest they’ve made on my significant past donations is enough to cover it. I don’t feel guilty. In fact, the thought of paying feels wrong to me. I can steward my money better than that. I will still give, but now my contributions will help people directly.
To be fair.. I stopped paying tithing before the SEC Order. But I certainly paid a lot over my life, including times I couldn’t afford it. Paying tithing caused me to take out more in student loans, which is stupid, I know. I thought it was the right thing to do at the time.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.