It's sad they consider this "serving others". And yow. So much $$$ for families to fork over. Tithing, fast offerings, missions. +++ whatever else. How do people afford it?
So, I am not a mathematician or anything, but 60,000 mishes x 500 per month is $30,000,000 and 360,000,000 per year. Doesn't the brethren of the Lord's church take in about 6 billion per year? Seems to me the church could just pay this for them.
Who would of thought serving the Lawd would be so expensive... just a matter of time before the TSCC starts giving out loans with low interest rates to the unfortunates that can't afford to serve.
Even at $500/month that's still less than $6,000/year, or about $16.44 per day.
It's hard to buy dinner at a sit-down restaurant for $16.44, let alone rent, utilities, transportation, etc. The church (or other members) must be kicking in a fair amount to make the system work.
Yes, I know that many parts of the world have a very low cost of living compared to the U.S.A. I did my time in one of those places. But lots of missionaries--especially ones from developing countries--can't afford to pay at all. Somebody (the church?) picks up the tab for them. I never heard of anyone who didn't go on a mission because they couldn't afford the monthly "donation."
Remember that missionaries are in groups of two or more. Often there are 4 (sometimes more) per apartment, which helps when paying the rent. I was in a European mission and mostly lived in crappy studio apartments or rented rooms in houses - - one in a mice infested attic. We rarely went out for lunch/dinner. In some areas members invited us over for meals so we rarely had to pay for food. Breakfast was bread and yogurt. Lunch was light, usually a missionary standard like tuna curry (canned tunafish with curry seasoning), and since we tracted from 2 PM - 9 PM, we didn't eat dinner unless we were invited to a member's house.
When I think about it, I'm not sure we paid rent. The church might have covered it, which is the least they could have done. I know that one apartment we stayed in was donated from a member. In the European country where I served we paid all bills at the post office. We stood in line to pay the bills with cash and received some kind of receipt with a stamp on it in return. We did not deal directly with the landlord. I remember forking over money for something, but I can't remember if it was the rent. It's all kind of a blur...
According to the article, they are going to use those going to poorer countries to subsidize those going to richer ones. There is some sense in that, but it does seem unfair that people who originate in poorer countries should have to pay the same rates as their richer colleagues.
This has always been a problem with missions. Back in the day, the cost of the mission depended on the actual cost of serving in the area they were called to. My brother was in Colombia, had maids and cooks and the cost of his mission was minimal, while other kids in the ward went to Europe or Japan where the burden on their families was much greater. I can't imagine the trepidation as a parent when you were waiting to find out whether you had to fork out $150 or $700 per month. And yes, that was about the range and it was quite a number of years ago.
I thought the change to a flat rate made sense and seemed so much more fair, until I had friends with kids living in virtual slums, drinking tainted water, etc. knowing their money was going to kids living in much better conditions in much better places. Sure, when you look at what it costs to house/feed a young adult, you might argue it's a bargain. But those two years you are forking out are two years they could have been in college or working and earning their own money. Instead, they are basically doing nothing toward securing their own future at your expense.
Church leaders would never travel “ without purse or scrip”, but missionary families and/ or the missionary are expected to cough up their own money and many, from what I’ve read on this board and also heard from friends, are living in awful conditions. It’s outrageous. Leaders have cushy conditions, no matter where they happen to live. But then again, what else would you expect from a business/ cult?
It will keep a few home who would otherwise have gone, but may serve to further entrench those who do go by increasing the sunk costs to them and their families. Mormons aren't good at recognizing sunk cost (& other) fallacies.
ChurchCo will NEVER make a full accounting of revenue & expenses, from any source: 'donations' (extractions on pain of Eternal Damnation) or business profits.
NEVER I tell you, there, I'm a True Prophet because I've accurately foretold the Future!!!
Now children, enjoy your mush & beans; if you're good, we'll waive a chicken over the beans...
Back in the day when I was a ward finance clerk, there were many families who couldn't afford to pay for their kids to go on missions. The bishop would announce over the pulpit that funds were needed and the more wealthy folks would fork over ample monies for these missionaries. I seen it happen and quite a few kids went on missions without every paying anything.
At least where I live, members are expected to house the missionaries for about $75 a month. Members sign up to pay for missionary dinners. Although I imagine if mishies are living with a family, they eat with the family for all meals not provided by other members.
Could this be phase II of the church's plan to reduce the number serving WITHOUT bluntly telling young people NOT to serve a mission?
I consider the initial phase to be for church leaders to apply more scrutiny before filling out the papers. I seem to recall that there are more opportunities to serve the church within their ward or stake. I think this was to discourage elders/sisters that may have medical or social reasons to serve an away-from-home mission, but could "honorably" serve from home.
Now what might be the rationale for increasing the monthly support payment? Surely, there will be a decrease in the number of applicants. This will cause shrinkage in certain missions.
How will the church benefit from this?
Now they can justify the closing and the realigning of the most unproductive missions. It will deflect attention that it couldn't possibly be the church's crappy message and vile doctrine that is failing to produce the magic converts that the missionary church so desires. Instead, the church will make a wonderful announcement that the church is looking how to better utilize the limited resources to better serve people. All those young missionaries are neither finding golden contacts nor converting themselves to stay active in the church.
-In 1991, the church equalized payments for missionary costs to a flat monthly rate of $350 a month to address "a great and growing disparity in the cost of missions in various areas of the world." Before that, some missionaries were spending as much as $900 a month while serving in expensive countries like Switzerland while others paid less than $50 a month in places such as Micronesia.-
I served stateside and I clearly remember being allotted 125 per month (church paid for apartments and utilities). The mission often saved even more money by moving in more missionaries into apartments than was designated as two-person apartments per the lease/contract.
Pretty honest, right?
One apartment had 3 sets of elders and there were always stories about sneaking in to the apartment to avoid the landlord.
Stingy parents would make good scapegoats, to take part of the blame of why Mormon missions are failing. The cult never owns up to anything. It brags that it is generous to put up missionaries in unliveable, (except for the mice and bugs) crime-ridden slums. The slum-lords are usually other Mormons. The missionary gets no medical or dental care or counseling. They are literally starving, in even the "best" countries. They are treated like prisioners...well, we know the truth about missions, these days.
Word is getting out that Mormonism is a hoax cult, and the BOM is bogus. Word is also getting out that being on a mission can be Hell.
The church could well afford to cover five times the amount of missionaries out there. They try to compel and guilt young men into going on a mission and then they do this with little warning.
If anything this will just discourage more men and women from going on a mission.
The church never fails to shoot themselves in the foot.
BAIIPLUS Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The church could well afford to cover five times > the amount of missionaries out there. They try to > compel and guilt young men into going on a mission > and then they do this with little warning. > Good point.
If members were paying attention to Rusty, they would realize that he doesn't value the missionary part of the church business. The church has grown tired of it. If Rusty could, he would announce that the Lord doesn't need 18 year olds going door to door to sell Mormon pooh pooh.
The church enjoys its financial ventures of building commercial and retail projects.
It also likes collecting tithing and requiring settlements to attend their temples.
Hahahaha! Parents who wondered if they could afford to send their BIC kids at $400/month and know they can't afford $500/month, will encourage their kids to come out as Gay, or get someone pregnant... ANYTHING to keep from having to submit the papers and then expose the parents to 'ridicule' when the kids either don't go or the parents have to admit ghawd hasn't favored them with the necessary wealth.
How humbling for the parents! Better their kids should be thought unworthy!!
My opinion is it isn't the amount but what the church covers. My kids are all over the place and I know we are subsidizing kids in more developed places. I would be okay with this if LDS Corp subsidized more. My kids are out there ostensibly for them.
They enjoy the experiences but their lives are completely controlled and by a variety of people who can setup rules arbitrarily.
If the church needs this kind of control they should subsidize it more AND look at family's like mine with multiple going at the same time.
No one at COB cares that we have to pay thrice for their proselytizing!
It's appalling, Elder Berry. Two years of extra hassles and expense - to what end. (Or three or four in your case, depending how the start dates are spread out).
How old do Mormon parents have to be before they can start saving $$$ for their own needs and retirement? (When they will undoubtedly then be nagged to go on yet another mission).
thedesertrat1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My question is How much of that actually gets to > the missionary?
In my old days example, the church was keeping 225 for itself and 125 was given to me from a 350 monthly payment to the church. I believe that was a 65% for the church in the 1990s.
My MP also mandated that we make a fast offering of 12.50 every month. We had to prove it with our copy of a signed deposit slip. So that means that we really had 112.50 to stretch 30 or 31 days. If it was up to our MP, he would have live on 60 dollars a month because he thought we had too much $$$ that led to iniquity.
It's all relative really. There isn't many sheaves to bring in from the Swiss Alps, but once you get a full Swiss tithe payer, you're rolling in the Fr Fr Frs (Swiss Francs).
dagny Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They have millions in investments but need kids to > VOLUNTEER. > > Can you imagine a business like McDonalds having > millions but not paying their workers.... Oh. > Wait.
They generally call such organizations "charities". I used to volunteer for one many years ago and I resigned because I felt I was being played for a sucker. I was working unpaid, to make money for them, while the CEO was making a six figure salary.
Charities may have good aims, but that doesn't mean that the way they are run is good.
That’s just a form of blackmail, using young people to “ serve “ 18 mo’s to 2 years. It’s just non - stop advertising for the church , from the time they get up , to the time they go to bed, everyday. They’re made to feel guilty and are put to shame if they don’t “ serve” , using their hard earned money, living in filthy conditions and dangerous countries, in some cases. That’s time and money that could be used towards their future. What do they gain out of this? Nothing! The church gains everything They can’t even pick their own country either. Tithing alone will pay for this.
It ain't the monetary cost that bugs me. It's the opportunity cost. What parent out there wouldn't be willing to spend $6,000 a year on a child? It's peanuts really, young people/parents pay that just for term tuition over most colleges.
But to waste two years being a missionary? That seems like a much greater cost than just the $12,000 they'll spend.
That's a very important point. The money and time opportunity cost is huge.
If they invest that money when the child is young, they would take advantage of compounding interest in the child's funds for his future.
The church has no problem hoarding money and land for it to appreciate and compound for itself. Then they have no problem telling the sheep to pay up now and God will make it up to them later.
Plus, being 2 years behind in education and earnings is a setback all in itself.
At least let them pick where they want to go and pick their own apartment, if parents are paying for it anyway. Too bad there wasn’t a reliable lie detector test that the authorities had to take before being sustained and during. They’d be caught in a lot of lies about the mission program and what’s happening behind the scenes, concerning themselves.
What the church won't talk about is the demands from the mission presidents to encourage missionaries to use less utilities to save costs. Trust me that each mission is monitored for its expenditures. I think mission presidents regularly meet and their expenditures are made known. If you're not the lowest then you're pressured to start towing the line.
We had just been told that our utility usage was out of control at a zone conference. We were ordered to turn off the ac during the day while we were out.
So we complied with the edict. It was one of my worst weeks as a missionary. It was pure hell. The apartment temp swelled to 86 or 88 and the window unit struggled all night to get the room back to a comfortable 75. As it was, the little window AC unit struggled all day just to maintain 80 degrees. Oh this was Laredo Texas where Halloween Day was 102 and at 10pm, it was still 90 degrees. Texas has two seasons: hot and hotter!
So after 3 days of being miserable and not sleeping well. I flat out told the Senior companion that the unit was going to stay on and he agreed.
We were told at the subsequent zone conference that missionaries were not in compliance. He stated that he was going to start cutting the power cords of AC units if they were left on during his surprise visits (You weren't supposed to be at your apartment when he visited or then you were in deeper doo-doo).
So I drew my line in the sand. I told my companion that if we returned and the AC unit was disabled by a cut cord, then I was going to pack my bags and go home. We did get a visit, but there was a polite note that said "We came by while you were out doing the Lord's work. Keep up the good work. PS try not to leave the AC running, You must have been late for an appt." Your District Leader
Almost 60% of American families can't afford an unexpected $500 expense.
One has to admire those families that are paying $4-500 a month for the missionary children on top of the tithing no matter your feelings about LDS and the missionary program.