Posted by:
Nightingale
(
)
Date: November 01, 2022 08:20PM
https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2022/11/01/jana-riess-lds-church-finances/This is the subhead, in Jana's words, which come across as objective:
"If the reports are true, the government has every right to be angry. This kind of financial practice looks terrible for the church. It feels covert and deceptive."
I could tell she is an active member, though, by this paragraph further down in her account which is obviously not 100% objective:
"The opening of the “60 Minutes” segment doesn’t inspire a great deal of confidence in its accuracy about Mormonism as a whole. One early sequence shows a white-shirted missionary heading to a doorbell all alone (where is his companion?) while gospel music plays in the background (I only wish we had such powerful and uplifting worship music in the church). It states “Mormons are required to hand over 10% of their income,” which makes it sound like there is no choice involved and that all members cough up a full 10% of their income in tithing just for the privilege of sitting in the pews."
To viewers, especially those unfamiliar with the church, a lone missionary going to a door wouldn't even register as being of any import. It's a tiny nit to pick about the program. I didn't notice the music in the background but why make it a point of contention, especially with the side comment that non-LDS music is more pleasing than the LDS kind. Maybe that's why they chose it instead!
Re her negative reaction to the statement in the program that Mormons are required to hand over 10% of their income, I think it's fair to say that. They didn't choose to spend much upfront time in a 40 minute program explaining the nitty gritty of the church. Like, you aren't required to hand it over but then you'll be scorned out or counted inactive or shamed or lose out in various ways or whatever. It was just an overview and the regular viewer will understand the principle of tithing without spending a lot of time in the intro on that aspect of being Mormon.
Her remarks about Australian membership are interesting:
"According to the church, there are more than 155,000 members on the membership rolls in Australia. However, nearly two-thirds of them did not declare themselves as Latter-day Saints on the most recent Australian census, which recorded just under 58,000 members, according to a website that tracks Latter-day Saint membership statistics around the world.
"Of that 58,000 who say they are members, a smaller number can be expected to be “active” in the church, which includes the ideal of tithing 10% of income."
Do they really have nearly 100K resigned or inactive members? She says even of the 58K not all of them would be active, so no tithes from them either.
Another excerpt:
"The church says it has done nothing wrong, and it’s possible that what it has done will turn out to be legal. That’s what has happened in Canada, where the church is also under investigation for its use of members’ tithes. The CBC reported last week that the “Mormon church in Canada moved $1B out of the country tax-free—and it’s legal.”
This statement doesn't present the whole picture - the point is that yes, it's "legal" but seems to break the spirit of the law, which states that the $$$ has to benefit Canadians. The church's reasoning is that as there are Canadian students at the BYU campuses they aren't contravening the Canadian law. But when you think of the amount of $$$ they transfer to the USA, compared to just a few hundred Canadian students at BYU, how can anyone reasonably think that is a good use of "charitable" donations? It's supposed to help people, not go into stock portfolios.
I think that Riess' inclusion of the phrase "and it's legal" misrepresents the crux of the matter, whether deliberately or not.
If you read the several threads here on the 60 Minutes program some of the details will demonstrate that.
I'd say it's obvious the church and its members will be taking note of the program.
Riess concludes her brief article by saying:
"This kind of financial practice looks terrible for the church. It feels covert and deceptive. Creating a “charity” that appears to be in name only is unfair to other religions in Australia that have played by the rules. It’s unfair to the Australian government, which has been shortchanged millions in taxes. And it’s unfair to those tithe-paying Latter-day Saints Down Under who had a right to assume their tithing was going where it was supposed to."
Yes. Exactly.
And it's not just the tithe-payers Down Under.