Whoa! That's impressive! That's almost $2.50 per supposed member per year!

How they manage to pony up 40 million per year out of 7 billion in tithing per year is proof that the church is ______.

Plus they are so modest!

This is exactly what I would say.

What they're not saying is that 99.9% of it is about helping their own through the Church Welfare Program. They're making it look like they're helping the non-Mormon community at large, but that is largely not the case.

I remember when I worked for the Church and some poor guy came into my office, about ready to faint from the lack of food. I had to explain to him that we weren't a church set up to help the needy who just walked in. He said, "Oh, I get it. You help your own." I was embarrassed, but had to admit that it was the case.

He wouldn't leave, saying he was about to keel over from hunger, so I gave him about $5 in coins which was collected from the sanitary napkin dispensers in the washrooms. It had been sitting in a drawer for a few years, as by that time, they no longer charged for them.

I told my boss about the situation and I said, "I'll put the money back again." He angrily said, "You're right, you will!"

He that oppresseth the poor reproacheth his Maker: but he that honoureth him hath mercy on the poor.

Proverbs 14:31

"You have to put mean people in charge of charity because when you put nice people in charge, they always run out of money too soon!"
~~Judic West, Solicitor General at Large

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "You have to put mean people in charge of charity
> because when you put nice people in charge, they
> always run out of money too soon!"
> ~~Judic West, Solicitor General at Large


Judic is so wise..... I follow his every word.

includes the local welfare given out by bishops, etc.

The article didn't sound like that, but the headline sort of does.

Does anyone know?

What would the 177 places be that received funds?

Who is in charge of making the decisions in this realm?

dimmesdale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> What would the 177 places be that received funds?
>
> Who is in charge of making the decisions in this
> realm?

Yeah, who was it who said "No" when his attention was brought to the 178, 179 and 180 places that were in need?

One time I was in the foyer with a baby during sacrament meeting and a poorly looking woman walked through the back door and asked for food. I took her to the building's kitchen and gave her leftovers I found in the fridge. I never mentioned it.

I'd say you're the same troll that makes a new moniker to post here. Just like the Warren Jeffs is Dead post.
But, in an attempt to make the church look good, you failed. People here can do math and the numbers make the church look miserly & greedy. Good job.

I just wanted some ammunition for my friends who eat this stuff up.

Your friends don't know it, but they're starving.

I say:

a) until the church opens its financial records to independent review, I don't believe Oaks. There's no reason to.

b) even if he's correct, that $40 Million per year (which the article says they've given every year for 30 years, a highly dubious claim) is less 1% of the church's annual income *as they've stated it* (but which we also can't verify, see a) above). So...big deal.

They are helping some folks. Some help is better than no help. Could they do more ? Sure. But at least, they are making an effort, even if a lot of it stays "at home" so to speak.
Hard to have confidence in their numbers as, frankly, I think they make it up as they go along.

SusieQ#1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
"They are helping some folks. Some help is better than no help. Could they do more ? Sure. But at least, they are making an effort, even if a lot of it stays "at home" so to speak. Hard to have confidence in their numbers as, frankly, I think they make it up as they go along."

I only ever see their charity brought up when someone points out the harm the church does. The church does a LOT of harm, and hides behind the "good" they do. God's one true church shouldn't be outdone in charity by many others. The little they do shows that they don't practice what they preach. The standards should be set higher for "the one true church." I could forgive a regular rich guy for wearing an 8k watch, but "President" Uchdorf, who claims to be one of the highest representatives for God's church on earth, shouldn't be caught dead with one.

As a member, I was told that the Mormon church does more than ANY other church. I could pay tithing and feel good knowing it was going to help the needy. Unfortunately, it's not. It's going to help LDS Inc. buy up land and build billion dollar malls for profit.

The little they do is a way to convince non-members of the merits of the church, and to reinforce the testimonies of the members. That's all it does. For how much money they rake in, (much more than the 7 billion they make from tithing) they do hilariously little.

It's obvious the church is all about profit. Where is the money going? To political influence and advertisement.

EDIT: About the making up numbers. They use the 15mil to impress people when they need impressing, and they use the 1.5mil active members when they need a good sob story about why they're not contributing more.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/27/2016 08:00AM by amongthetombstones.

The malls, I mean.
And she got angry and said, "What do you EXPECT them to do with their money. They have to make returns on their money. Then need to invest it. And this way they really help the people of Salt Lake City (the mall).

Heaven forbid the church worries about the welfare of impoverished countries (where they're converting poor people, and then stealing 10%.) and practices what they preach. You don't need to make investments when you steal 7 billion a year. After humanitarian aide, that's 6.95 billion free dollars every year. Add in what they're already raking in from their for-profit businesses, and they're making plenty enough money to provide twenty times the humanitarian aide, and still have enough money to advertise on google, and buy up land, and create propaganda films, and blow money on redundant temples that no-one needed. I'm sorry, why are they making long-term investments if the second coming was supposed to be during my dead grandpa's lifetime?

I got nearly a word for word response from my wife.

They need returns on investment to ensure the church has money in the future to operate.

That's not a charity, that's a forward thinking business.

Arrghh!

The Mormon church puts a lot more effort into their real estate deals than it does into charity. The recent 45 million dollar real estate deal down in Texas spent one more money *in one transaction* than the church spent on charity in one year (and probably many years.)

The Mormon church is a business.

Business is in thrall to the Capitalist Model.

Capitalism doesn't do compassion.

They are just trying to toot Moroni's horn.

Also remember that they count in their humanitarian donations the "in kind" stuff that is donated. When wards tie quilts and donate them to the humanitarian fund, all the supplies for the quilts, the time to do them, etc. is donated by the ward members. Then a monetary value is claimed by the church when they donate it to charity. Same with hygiene kits, etc.

You can buy anything in this world with money including the appearance of being charitable.

I liked this part:

"According to the Church, a good portion of the administrative and overhead costs associated with the various humanitarian programs are privately fronted by the Church itself."

Meaning that the church, in theory, could ramp up to spent $10 million in aid to a country that had just suffered a disaster. They could spend $9 million funneling money to leaders catagorized as "administrative and overhead costs" while a million actually ends up going to any read aid.

There are a million ways to play with the numbers when there is no records released to prove what they are doing.

Start being transparent about your finances and I might start actually believing the claims you are making.

Depends on what "administrative costs" they are talking about more than overhead. They have a Welfare program doing the overhead jobs and getting paid to do it.

The thing that galls me is their processing costs (for things like member-created hygiene kits) when they utilize so much volunteering for their profit-like ventures.

I now have to login to see the Church Service Missionary Opportunities but some have this on them.

"This volunteer exists to provide a variety of services to Church operations on either a short or long terms basis. It is not considered a Church-service missionary position."

This was managing a fleet of vehicles as well as other vehicle-related work.

Of course, that's over 30 years. Over the same 30 years, church income can be estimated at $210 billion:

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/13/13262285-mormon-church-earns-7-billion-a-year-from-tithing-analysis-indicates

$1.2 over $210 comes to about half a percent. Which is in pretty good agreement with other estimates e.g. Cragun.

So you could say "LDS Church has Spent 1.2 Billion on Welfare and Humanitarian Efforts" But that omits key context and is actively misleading.

Or you could say "LDS Church Spent less than 1% of its income on Welfare and Humanitarian Efforts" That restores the context, gives the full story.

Now: the cited item is a press release dressed up as news, all occasioned by Oaks recent statement. The Desert News does much the same thing:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865657898/LDS-Church-welfare-humanitarian-efforts-average-40-million-per-year-apostle-says.html?pg=all

I did a Google News search and found little coverage beyond that, and none whatsoever that presented the accurate story. You could say it's not TSSC's fault that coverage presents misleading PR as objective, factual, news reporting. It is however TSSC's luck, and why they will probably continue to put out misleading press releases like this.

hahahahaha! I'm familiar with TSCC, the so called church, but TSSC, The stupid shit church, was new to me.

I like it!

Considering all the for-profit businesses owned by the church, I think it's safe to say they've made way more than that.

Whatever good the church does to help the less fortunate is a good thing.

Maybe it doesn't do enough, but even a little charity is better than no charity.

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe it doesn't do enough, but even a little
> charity is better than no charity.

Consider the source. Charity from an abuser is not better than no charity if the world we live in is one where 10 percent charity (no where near what LDS does) from a 90 percent controlling multi-level religious marketing scheme that hurts far more people than it helps seems like a terrible thing to be grateful for in regards to charity.

Some people deal with reality as it is, while others prefer to live a 'sound bite' kind of existence, in which personal stories are coin of the realm.

In 100 years someone will distill the essence of RfM into a pill and it'll be sweet, with just a tiniest hint of gall.

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Some people deal with reality as it is, while
> others prefer to live a 'sound bite' kind of
> existence, in which personal stories are coin of
> the realm.

Reminds me of some General Authorities...

Skyrocketing suicide rates in Utah. The dismal amount of charity work they do does not make up for that. They do more harm than good. The government does quite a bit of good, but it's with our money and a large amount is wasted. Same as the church.

Well, when LDS Inc. starts public good public works or even just pays for school for people instead of loaning them money, I will see that they are more about spending people's money for good instead of taking a collection up for dead people and a holding company for profit and land grabbing ventures.