General Conference Predictions

[jay santos]

What I am saying is, I don't know. If you turned out to be right it would not change my overall point at all. But if fast offerings do represent 600-700 million per year then I admit that is impressive. I have always said the church takes good care of its own. It has set up a separate program expressly for that purpose.

Do you think it's misleading to spout the 1% number and then go straight to talking about hoarding and the mall?

[tooblue]

Tooblue, I have noted your post and that of Pilgrim. I have no idea why I'm out of bounds.

Sorry ... I meant to say that the pilgrim is out of bounds.

[creekster]

LA I would be curious to know more about that. I have been given to believe that FO funds are sent to a single account in SLC and are then re-allocated to the stakes. If that is not correct I would welcome being set straight on that point.

I think you are both correct and incorrect. IN terms of the actual funds, those are all swept to SLC each week when they are deposited. There is no such thing as a local fast offering account, at least not one that is on the books. BUT, they are accounted for locally, so that the bishop has complete discretion over those funds and they are spent as he sees fit. But if he doesn't spend them, they sit in SLC and are used elsewhere.

I also think Santos is generally correct. Some wards/stakes are net providers and others are net consumers of fast offerings. I know that in my stake the recession has seen us go from 9 units that are net providers to only 3 that were net providers and now we are back to about 5 (as I understand it).

All this is my understanding. YMMV.

[NorthwestUteFan]

I don't understand what you're saying. The church has a revenue source specifically defined to support operations and infrastructure (tithing). And the church has a revenue source specifically defined to be a charity to give to poor (FO). Both are given by members to the church. Are you saying FO shouldn't be included in the numerator of a figure that expresses the percentage the church gives away? If so, why not?

Perhaps I am too stuck on looking at the church as a business and separating revenue streams based on the intended use, when viewing the church leaders (above the stake/regional level) as 'officers of the organization'.

It just seems a bit disingenuous for the church to claim FO along with its more standard charitable giving operations. FO was initially a completely locally-run and administered 'service' provided by members. Further is it SOLD to the contributing members as a local fund for local use. But I see now that there is far more central control over the program than I realized.

I guess I fear any 'excess' FO funds getting rolled into the general fund and lost.

FTR, I am a big fan of and mightily impressed by the FO program, along with the Bishop's Storehouse and Cannery organizations. They are wonderful systems.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Frankly, I am a little surprised that you are stirring this pot, given that you have never made a donation. Perhaps I missed it.

Now THAT is funny. :stirthepot:

[tooblue]

Now you are being deliberately obtuse. My personal finances have nothing to do with this discussion.



Yes, some folks have been very generous and I haven't had to pester anyone about raising funds. It's a wonderful community. Right now we are a few hundreds bucks in the black which is good since I need to upgrade to vbulletin 4 sometime in the near future. I haven't diverted a penny of CUF donations for personal use.

Frankly, I am a little surprised that you are stirring this pot, given that you have never made a donation. Perhaps I missed it.

I think your personal finances have everything to do with it. Say for example, in exchange for full disclosure by the church to you, you will provide full disclosure to your Bishop at your next tithing settlement. He can then tell you how to better spend your money.

I don't know of what pot you speak. If you want me to stir it I'll consider the request, but I don't think there is a problem, except maybe you are upset by the fact I haven't contributed. I once contributed generously to CougarGuard. I learned my lesson.

[UtahDan]

Do you think it's misleading to spout the 1% number and then go straight to talking about hoarding and the mall?

No, I think the numbers speak for themselves. I'm not going to try to make a further defense of my motives.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I think your personal finances have everything to do with it. Say for example, in exchange for full disclosure by the church to you, you will provide full disclosure to your Bishop at your next tithing settlement. He can then tell you how to better spend your money.

That makes zero sense. My income is not derived from donations.

I understand that the church is private and they are under no legal obligation to open the books. And I think there are some good arguments for keeping the books closed. But my personal preference would be to have open books and a public accounting process. Common consent and all that.

[NorthwestUteFan]

I think your personal finances have everything to do with it. Say for example, in exchange for full disclosure by the church to you, you will provide full disclosure to your Bishop at your next tithing settlement. He can then tell you how to better spend your money.

We already do this (effectively) in tithing settlement. A prospectus on our investment would be nice.

[jay santos]

No, I think the numbers speak for themselves. I'm not going to try to make a further defense of my motives.

Then you should specify this is the amount given externally and you should avoid using the phrase alleviate suffering and be careful about implying the remaining 99% is hoarded or used for infrastructure. Unless of course your goal is to mislead and incite.

[tooblue]

That makes zero sense. My income is not derived from donations.

I understand that the church is private and they are under no legal obligation to open the books. And I think there are some good arguments for keeping the books closed. But my personal preference would be to have open books and a public accounting process. Common consent and all that.

That common consent would have to be applied globally, and therefore it makes perfect sense that you and every other member would also be required to make a public accounting of our finances.

[tooblue]

We already do this (effectively) in tithing settlement. A prospectus on our investment would be nice.

The only question I am ever asked is: are you a full tithe payer. So, no. We do not already do this, not even marginally.

[Jeff Lebowski]

That common consent would have to be applied globally, and therefore it makes perfect sense that you and every other member would also be required to make a public accounting of our finances.

There you go being deliberately obtuse again. I give up.

[NorthwestUteFan]

'We' of course refers to full tithe payers and not the entire membership of the church.

It should be easy enough to derive the total income from the tithing donation, of the person claims to be a 'full tithe payer'. Or are tithing percentages left up the individual for personal revelation? Can I waltz into tithing settlement, pay 3% of net after housing and food expenses, and rightly say, "Yes, sir, I am a full tithe payer!"?

[tooblue]

There you go being deliberately obtuse again. I give up.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.