General Conference Predictions

[UtahDan]

I wholeheartedly agree.

Parenthetically--and this will rankle some, but what post of mine doesn't--the church is an extremely efficient charitable organization. Fast offerings and other offerings like the Perpetual Education Fund are run as thin as possible.

I've had some admittedly limited experience with other types of charities, and while they are all full of good people trying to do their best, their overhead costs often end up eating far more of the donation dollars than they should. The church isn't immune to this, but it runs far leaner than any other I've seen.

This is just another excellent way to bless lives of members in other less fortunate areas of the world.

If so then that is great. But this church is not a charity. More than 99% of its revenue supports infrastructure, goes to building things or is horded is some fashion. There is not a person on this board that gives a smaller percentage of their income to charity than the church does.

This is not the fault of the members, they do their best and most of them probably think the tithing money they donate goes at least partly to help people. Then they donate more on top of that for things that actually do in some small way. The church occasionally pretends to a charitable function, but that is such a negligible part of its mission as to scarcely be worthy of mention. Why is this such a shame? Because if the church ever decided to harness its resources and organizational know how for charitable ventures on more than a tiny scale it could probably do it better than anyone in the world.

[Portland Ute]

If so then that is great. But this church is not a charity. More than 99% of its revenue supports infrastructure, goes to building things or is horded is some fashion. There is not a person on this board that gives a smaller percentage of their income to charity than the church does.

This is not the fault of the members, they do their best and most of them probably think the tithing money they donate goes at least partly to help people. Then they donate more on top of that for things that actually do in some small way. The church occasionally pretends to a charitable function, but that is such a negligible part of its mission as to scarcely be worthy of mention. Why is this such a shame? Because if the church ever decided to harness its resources and organizational know how for charitable ventures on more than a tiny scale it could probably do it better than anyone in the world.

Where do you come up with this "99% of revenue" figure, out of curiosity?

[CardiacCoug]

Where do you come up with this "99% of revenue" figure, out of curiosity?

Tithing revenues are estimated at about 6 billion per year.

Not sure what the Church claims to give to charity from its tithing revenue, but unless it's $60 million per year or more, then UD would be right.

[myboynoah]

If so then that is great. But this church is not a charity. More than 99% of its revenue supports infrastructure, goes to building things or is horded is some fashion. There is not a person on this board that gives a smaller percentage of their income to charity than the church does.

This is not the fault of the members, they do their best and most of them probably think the tithing money they donate goes at least partly to help people. Then they donate more on top of that for things that actually do in some small way. The church occasionally pretends to a charitable function, but that is such a negligible part of its mission as to scarcely be worthy of mention. Why is this such a shame? Because if the church ever decided to harness its resources and organizational know how for charitable ventures on more than a tiny scale it could probably do it better than anyone in the world.

I'd be curious about your 99% figure as well.

I don't know that The Church every claimed to be a charity, but it has been pretty open about it's priorities, some of which include what most would classify by as charitable giving.

Also, were you ever under the impression that your tithing contribution was earmarked primarily for charity? I wasn't. In fact I remember teaching and learning that tithing was for the types of infrastructure support you mention. Fast offerings are for helping those in need. That's always been fairly well understood.

[UtahDan]

Where do you come up with this "99% of revenue" figure, out of curiosity?

http://providentliving.org/pdf/2010_...et_English.pdf

http://www.lds-mormon.com/time.shtml

Church's document shows 1.3B in aid over the last 25 years. Of course much of that is in kind and represents FMV of the item rather than its actual cost. But even given full credit, the second document estimates annual income of 5.9B as of 14 years ago. Hard to imagine it is less now. So very roughly (13B/25y)/5.9B= .0088. Or just a shade less than 1%.

That is not a slap at what it does. It is not required to do anything, of course. It just puts in perspective what it could do. Imagine what 10% of that revenue could do to alleviate suffering. A literally breath taking amount. Food for thought.

[tooblue]

I'd be curious about your 99% figure as well.

I don't know that The Church every claimed to be a charity, but it has been pretty open about it's priorities, some of which include what most would classify by as charitable giving.

Also, were you ever under the impression that your tithing contribution was earmarked primarily for charity? I wasn't. In fact I remember teaching and learning that tithing was for the types of infrastructure support you mention. Fast offerings are for helping those in need. That's always been fairly well understood.

The 99% represents a callous view of the church. His use of it is meant purely to be provocative. We've had these discussions before but, I am surprised that dan has resorted to such tactics. In my experience he is often deliberately obtuse, but he's generally not this stupid.

[Tex]

Any decent charity would be "efficient" if it didn't have to pay people for their labor.

Obviously.

I'd be curious about your 99% figure as well.

I don't know that The Church every claimed to be a charity, but it has been pretty open about it's priorities, some of which include what most would classify by as charitable giving.

Also, were you ever under the impression that your tithing contribution was earmarked primarily for charity? I wasn't. In fact I remember teaching and learning that tithing was for the types of infrastructure support you mention. Fast offerings are for helping those in need. That's always been fairly well understood.

This.

[UtahDan]

I'd be curious about your 99% figure as well.

I don't know that The Church every claimed to be a charity, but it has been pretty open about it's priorities, some of which include what most would classify by as charitable giving.

Also, were you ever under the impression that your tithing contribution was earmarked primarily for charity? I wasn't. In fact I remember teaching and learning that tithing was for the types of infrastructure support you mention. Fast offerings are for helping those in need. That's always been fairly well understood.

No I don't think I ever thought it was going for that. But I do think it is fair to ask, and you ought to ask yourself, where does more than six billion dollars go every year? If it is being horded (which it clearly is), why? I believe the reason is they foresee declining revenue. That is a good business principle to act on but not a very Christian one, IMO.

[Tex]

http://providentliving.org/pdf/2010_...et_English.pdf

http://www.lds-mormon.com/time.shtml

Church's document shows 1.3B in aid over the last 25 years. Of course much of that is in kind and represents FMV of the item rather than its actual cost. But even given full credit, the second document estimates annual income of 5.9B as of 14 years ago. Hard to imagine it is less now. So very roughly (13B/25y)/5.9B= .0088. Or just a shade less than 1%.

That is not a slap at what it does. It is not required to do anything, of course. It just puts in perspective what it could do. Imagine what 10% of that revenue could do to alleviate suffering. A literally breath taking amount. Food for thought.

Good grief. 63,377 tons of food. 14,345 tons of medical supplies. 93,196 tons of clothing. And 11.1 million hygiene, newborn, and school kits.

And this is called a "shame."

[UtahDan]

The 99% represents a callous view of the church. His use of it is meant purely to be provocative. We've had these discussions before but, I am surprised that dan has resorted to such tactics. In my experience he is often deliberately obtuse, but he's generally not this stupid.

No I'm being perfectly serious. I understand that the church views itself as having a sacred mission that has nothing to do with temporal needs. I can respect that. Still, it could afford to have a very significant temporal impact that would not be at the expense of its spiritual one. Why doesn't it?

I don't see this at all as choosing between the church's missionary mission and turning itself into Catholic charities. It is a choice between spending money to alleviate suffering now and having unimaginably vast real estate holdings, financial holdings and assets. Far more than it would ever need to be financially secure. Like I say, I think they are anticipating seven years of famine so to speak. What else explains it?

[TripletDaddy]

Put away the pitchforks, folks. UtahDan is simply pointing out that the Church may be in a position to do even more. He isn't saying the Church is not making a difference out there.

Not sure why that is such a threatening thought.

[UtahDan]

Good grief. 63,377 tons of food. 14,345 tons of medical supplies. 93,196 tons of clothing. And 11.1 million hygiene, newborn, and toiletry kits.

And this is called a "shame."

When much is given much is required Tex. You should know this. Do you disagree with me that diverting a mere 10%, or tithe, of all that money to humanitarian aid would do nothing to interfere with the church's other missions?

[jay santos]

http://providentliving.org/pdf/2010_...et_English.pdf

http://www.lds-mormon.com/time.shtml

Church's document shows 1.3B in aid over the last 25 years. Of course much of that is in kind and represents FMV of the item rather than its actual cost. But even given full credit, the second document estimates annual income of 5.9B as of 14 years ago. Hard to imagine it is less now. So very roughly (13B/25y)/5.9B= .0088. Or just a shade less than 1%.

That is not a slap at what it does. It is not required to do anything, of course. It just puts in perspective what it could do. Imagine what 10% of that revenue could do to alleviate suffering. A literally breath taking amount. Food for thought.

This doesn't seem right.

1) Fast offerings. What % of tithing do you think fast offerings makes up? It seems unreasonable to think it would be less than 1%. Do you think fast offerings gets funneled away to infrastructure?

2) Tithing. Some goes to infrastructure. Is infrastructure required for an organization to alleviate suffering? It goes to missionary work. How much in terms of labor does the church give each year through missionary work? Missionaries are required to spend X number of hours doing service. I know my in-law's just spent a year on a mission doing nothing but alleviating suffering. This was funded by tithing. What about BYU? How many kids get an education paid for they would have had to pay tens of thousands for had it not been subsidized by BYU?

Spouting that 1% number around without some context makes you seem pretty anti.

[tooblue]

http://providentliving.org/pdf/2010_...et_English.pdf

http://www.lds-mormon.com/time.shtml

Church's document shows 1.3B in aid over the last 25 years. Of course much of that is in kind and represents FMV of the item rather than its actual cost. But even given full credit, the second document estimates annual income of 5.9B as of 14 years ago. Hard to imagine it is less now. So very roughly (13B/25y)/5.9B= .0088. Or just a shade less than 1%.

That is not a slap at what it does. It is not required to do anything, of course. It just puts in perspective what it could do. Imagine what 10% of that revenue could do to alleviate suffering. A literally breath taking amount. Food for thought.

What is charity? What is required to provide or deliver it? Furthermore, at what point does some one or, some thing start being charitable, verses a time when that some one or some thing stops being charitable?

Do the numbers provide answers to the questions above? Or, are they numbers offered in abstract; nothing more than an indicator of something that may or may not be an answer to a question that is only asked because it can be asked?

[jay santos]

If it is being horded (which it clearly is), why? I believe the reason is they foresee declining revenue. That is a good business principle to act on but not a very Christian one, IMO.

Why wouldn't it be a Christian concept to secure a church against possible future revenue decline?