Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the News

[wapiti]

I’ve consistently read that humanitarian aid is in the tens of millions per year (40-60). A 20x jump likely means they’ve just reclassified Church education costs. Seems disingenuous.

More likely that they've added in the churches welfare program. And that should count.

[BigPiney]

Not sure if this belongs in the sports forum or here, but this BYU pole vaulter has gone viral:

Trigger warning: nut shot

https://www.tiktok.com/@zach_mcwhort...11744542280966

required 18 stitches. yikes.

[Green Monstah]

I recall reading clarifications on the aid amount prior to the whistleblower. I recall reading an article recently from 2012.



No issue whatsoever.



What makes you think the education is part of that $1B number? Yes, they talk about education in the article, but it is part of a broader discussion about the church's overall expenses. Furthermore, they claim that CES costs $1.5B per year. If that is true, how would the $1B part include CES? The article also talks about the expenses of building temples - and that is clearly not part of the humanitarian budget. Here is what is says about aid:



That is quite specific language. So yes, I am going to double down and say that your claim that the church is fudging the numbers here is based solely on your cynicism.

Weird that you read $1B in 2012, but Oaks was touting $40MM in 2016.

Since there’s a clear re-classification of what is humanitarian, I don’t think it’s at all cynical to ask what has changed and why it’s changed.

[Green Monstah]

More likely that they've added in the churches welfare program. And that should count.

I don’t think redistribution of fast offerings should count, but I’m also not willing to argue about it.
But we don’t really know, right? Real transparency makes these discussions superfluous.

[imanihonjin]

I don’t think redistribution of fast offerings should count, but I’m also not willing to argue about it.
But we don’t really know, right? Real transparency makes these discussions superfluous.

What is the difference between the redistribution of fast offerings and the redistribution of tithes?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Weird that you read $1B in 2012, but Oaks was touting $40MM in 2016.

Since there’s a clear re-classification of what is humanitarian, I don’t think it’s at all cynical to ask what has changed and why it’s changed.

Asked and answered.

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthr...=1#post1446582

[Green Monstah]

Asked and answered.

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthr...=1#post1446582

You didn’t answer anything. At best you postulated. Kathleen Flake is a professor and moderate apologist. Her article is not authoritative.(sorry—I guess that was tooblue).

[Jeff Lebowski]

You didn’t answer anything. At best you postulated. Kathleen Flake is a professor and moderate apologist. Her article is not authoritative.(sorry—I guess that was tooblue).

Irony alert.

[swampfrog]

Weird that you read $1B in 2012, but Oaks was touting $40MM in 2016.

Since there’s a clear re-classification of what is humanitarian, I don’t think it’s at all cynical to ask what has changed and why it’s changed.

It's a fair question, as is the recognition that one of the things that changed is the public framing of the question--including the accusatory nature. When someone offers information as Oaks did, the audience and context matters. Sometimes the context would be specifically visible goods and services provided for immediate relief to parties external or independent of church membership, and sometimes not.

When the framing of the question is humanitarian spending with respect to total assets, then an answer now has to respond within the broader formulation that the question was made. Long term and short term assistance? Is education humanitarian? Do you include missionary spending? In some cases this alleviates families from sacrificing resources that otherwise are routed to food and shelter, in some cases not.

It's a complicated set of questions with very nuanced answers. Which means the framing of the question will result in different answers dependent on implicit and explicit expectations set by the audience and nature of the question.

So the first thing that must be answered is it even the same question?

[Northwestcoug]

I don’t think redistribution of fast offerings should count, but I’m also not willing to argue about it.
But we don’t really know, right? Real transparency makes these discussions superfluous.

That doesn't make sense to me either. I mean, I guess since all the churches' money started by member's donations at some point in time, you can add fast offerings along with other humanitarian aid. But if fast offerings makes up a significant amount of that yearly humanitarian number (no idea if it does or not), I will agree with you that it seems a little disingenuous.

[tooblue]

You didn’t answer anything. At best you postulated. Kathleen Flake is a professor and moderate apologist. Her article is not authoritative.(sorry—I guess that was tooblue).

There is an entire seperate thread on this subject. The link to the article also found in that thread is not offered to persuade nor is it presented as authoritative. It plainly points to facts derived from a variety of sources available to the public, and from which logical conclusions can be drawn.

Though not openly expressed (but interpreted by me) the logical conclusion the author draws is that in 2018 the church possibly contributed more than a billion dollars for humanitarian efforts. Those humanitarian efforts range from: food donations and clean water initiatives to emergency response, refugee response, vision care and providing wheel chairs to name a few.

None of what is listed under WHAT WE DO on the LDS charities Web site mentions LDS welfare programs, CES, Universities, pathways programs, temple building, building maintenance or missionary programs etc. Your efforts at conflating the day-to-day organizational operations of the LDS church with what is listed in the previous paragraph and clearly designated as humanitarian efforts is disingenuous.

Your only motive can be to validate the cynical narrative you have constructed.

[tooblue]

It's a fair question, as is the recognition that one of the things that changed is the public framing of the question--including the accusatory nature. When someone offers information as Oaks did, the audience and context matters. Sometimes the context would be specifically visible goods and services provided for immediate relief to parties external or independent of church membership, and sometimes not.

When the framing of the question is humanitarian spending with respect to total assets, then an answer now has to respond within the broader formulation that the question was made. Long term and short term assistance? Is education humanitarian? Do you include missionary spending? In some cases this alleviates families from sacrificing resources that otherwise are routed to food and shelter, in some cases not.

It's a complicated set of questions with very nuanced answers. Which means the framing of the question will result in different answers dependent on implicit and explicit expectations set by the audience and nature of the question.

So the first thing that must be answered is it even the same question?

Great thoughts.

[Jeff Lebowski]

That doesn't make sense to me either. I mean, I guess since all the churches' money started by member's donations at some point in time, you can add fast offerings along with other humanitarian aid. But if fast offerings makes up a significant amount of that yearly humanitarian number (no idea if it does or not), I will agree with you that it seems a little disingenuous.

Money donated by members of the church for humanitarian aid cannot be counted as money disbursed by the church as humanitarian aid? Sorry, that is nuts.

[Jeff Lebowski]

It's a fair question, as is the recognition that one of the things that changed is the public framing of the question--including the accusatory nature. When someone offers information as Oaks did, the audience and context matters. Sometimes the context would be specifically visible goods and services provided for immediate relief to parties external or independent of church membership, and sometimes not.

When the framing of the question is humanitarian spending with respect to total assets, then an answer now has to respond within the broader formulation that the question was made. Long term and short term assistance? Is education humanitarian? Do you include missionary spending? In some cases this alleviates families from sacrificing resources that otherwise are routed to food and shelter, in some cases not.

It's a complicated set of questions with very nuanced answers. Which means the framing of the question will result in different answers dependent on implicit and explicit expectations set by the audience and nature of the question.

So the first thing that must be answered is it even the same question?

Nuance shmuance!

[tooblue]

That doesn't make sense to me either. I mean, I guess since all the churches' money started by member's donations at some point in time, you can add fast offerings along with other humanitarian aid. But if fast offerings makes up a significant amount of that yearly humanitarian number (no idea if it does or not), I will agree with you that it seems a little disingenuous.

The church has yearly operational expenses costing billions of dollars: buildings, missionary efforts, educational institutions, programs and initiatives, counselling services (mental health), legal services, employment services, religious educational institutions, programs and initiatives etc.

The church also contributes to at least 155 humanitarian initiatives in "195 different countries." The presiding Bishopric, who manages and administers this aid has stated those contributions are close to a billion dollars annually.

How is any of the above disingenuous?