Fast Offerings

[The Rambam]

I really wish the church would flip tithing and fast offerings. Members would donate ten percent to care for the poor and toss in whatever they can to run the church. I would think the church has enough assets and volunteers to run for many years. Maybe they could rent out the church buildings when not in use. There might be some private schools that would be willing to rent church buildings for six to eight hours a day. Those buildings are under utilized in my opinion.

I totally agree. The failure to allow our buildings to serve others during the week is a travesty IMHO.

[Mormon Red Death]

[the 100% LDS Provo city counsel opposed a homeless shelter for over a decade because it "would only attract more homeless people" and we wouldn't want to keep others who needed to be kept warm and fed, sheltered and nourished. They have now relented to allow zoning, but refuse to provide funds.]

Maybe you should run for office.

[myboynoah]

I totally agree. The failure to allow our buildings to serve others during the week is a travesty IMHO.

Take heart again. My brother was in town for the holiday and mentioned that their building is used on Friday's by Muslims, free of charge. This is until the Muslims get their own Mosque.

[UtahDan]

I agree wholeheartedly that there are instances where it is appropriate to make a huge house payment on a McMansion out of fast offering funds. But the exception probably proves the rule.

I still don't know how often house payments are being made at all. Your original comment seemed to reflect a belief that this is common place. I may just be ignorant on this, but what is informing that belief?

That it is difficult doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. And the Church isn't even trying. We send a bunch of aid after an earthquake or some other disaster. We now give student loans in a few places via the wonderful PEF. But we don't even try to be a humanitarian relief organization. We have the funds to be one of the biggest and most effective on the planet. But we use the funds to buy big ranches and farms in the midwest. I do wonder why we don't even try to help those in perpetual need.

We buy ranches and farms all over the place, not just the midwest. We own vast tracts of land in Florida. There are two guys in my ward (I'm starting to sound like Waters now) who grew up on church owned ranches in Florida and now by coincidence work on a privately owned ranch in my area (both BYU grads). I asked one of them why we have some many of these and the answer is two fold (1) real estate is viewed as the very most conservative investment that the church can make (2) the church wants to have the capacity to ramp these ranches and other farms into significant production if the need ever arises.

I can't say that our oracles are incorrect that this is a more pressing need, if in fact that is the choice that is being made. I too would like to see our humanitarian efforts grow, but I don't think that means the funds are being used unwisely now. I take if from your tone that you believe that we are simply indifferent to the third world and are more focused on the accumulation of wealth. I don't think that what you are highlighting here is very persuasive evidence of that. Maybe there are other factors you rely on, or maybe I misread you, but I don't know what else to ascribe the negative tone to.

Mormon wrote to the members of the Church in our day in his final chapters. He said it better than I can in chapter 8:

35 Behold, I speak unto you as if ye were present, and yet ye are not. But behold, Jesus Christ hath shown you unto me, and I know your doing.

36 And I know that ye do walk in the pride of your hearts; and there are none save a few only who do not lift themselves up in the pride of their hearts, unto the wearing of very fine apparel [from Abercrombie and American Eagle and Gap], unto envying, and strifes, and malice, and persecutions, and all manner of iniquities; and your churches, yea, even every one, have become polluted because of the pride of your hearts.

37 For behold, ye do love money, and your substance, and your fine apparel, and the adorning of your churches [like the amazing new Temples in Draper and Daybreak and the opulent Joseph Smith Memorial Building], more than ye love the poor and the needy, the sick and the afflicted [so you won't fund a homeless shelter in Utah County and refuse to consider innovative solutions like a church-wide self-funded health insurance plan].

. . .

39 Why do ye adorn yourselves with that which hath no life, and yet suffer the hungry, and the needy, and the naked, and the sick and the afflicted to pass by you, and notice them not? [the 100% LDS Provo city counsel opposed a homeless shelter for over a decade because it "would only attract more homeless people" and we wouldn't want to keep others who needed to be kept warm and fed, sheltered and nourished. They have now relented to allow zoning, but refuse to provide funds.]

When this scripture was read in my class today I said, thank goodness he is talking about someone else and not anyone inside the church! That drew a pretty good laugh, and then we talked at length about how much of the BOM is a warning not to the world but to the covenant people.

Obviously the Provo town counsel is not the church, and I know you are not suggesting that it is. I guess I am not convinced the the church as an entity is "suffering the beggar to put up his petition in vain" so to speak, though perhaps the members are. I think where we agree is that we could do more, where we part company is on the idea that institutionally we currently are making the wrong choices based upon the wrong motivations. I believe the brethren are trying their best to do what Christ would have them do. That doesn't mean they get it right all the time, but it does mean that I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt as to motivations.

[LA Ute]

I am personally actively involved in third world education efforts. I also pay tithing which subsidizes The Roof Restaurant and the Temple Square lights and the entire downtown SLC revitalization project. I also pay fast offerings which subsidizes the mortgages on many McMansions. Unfortunately none of my tithing or fast offerings goes to the Perpetual Education Fund--I have to donate separately for that.

Most of this is nonsense. A post full of inaccuracies is nothing more than a wild rant.

[UtahDan]

Most of this is nonsense. A post full of inaccuracies is nothing more than a wild rant.

It is helpful for those of us who have not been around the block as many times if you attempt to set the record straight on whatever you are taking issue with. Otherwise we don't get the benefit of your insight.

[RobinFinderson]

I also pay tithing which subsidizes The Roof Restaurant and the Temple Square lights and the entire downtown SLC revitalization project. I also pay fast offerings which subsidizes the mortgages on many McMansions. Unfortunately none of my tithing or fast offerings goes to the Perpetual Education Fund--I have to donate separately for that.

On the one hand, maybe the church leaders feel that investing in downtown SLC follows in the greatest traditions of the Mormon pioneers who built SLC from the ground up. Mormons have been city builders from the beginning.

On the ohter hand, said rationale begins to sound like plot-line ripped straight out of an episode of Big Love. At the very least one is left to wonder what spiritual benefit might come from investing in a shopping mall.

[Clark Addison]

I was under the impression that, while there is no set rule, there is a guideline that fast offerings are not to be used for ongoing mortgage payments, that if there is a need for more than a month or two, the house should be sold. Can anyone confirm this, or is this just one of the policies of one of my Bishops that I have somehow taken as a Church position?

[myboynoah]

I was under the impression that, while there is no set rule, there is a guideline that fast offerings are not to be used for ongoing mortgage payments, that if there is a need for more than a month or two, the house should be sold. Can anyone confirm this, or is this just one of the policies of one of my Bishops that I have somehow taken as a Church position?

Good question. During my several years as a ward clerk, I've never seen fast offering funds used to pay a mortgage. I'm sure it has happened, but my experience would lead me to believe that there are guidelines to prevent the church from paying on an ongoing basis. Indeed, I had one Bishop that refused to pay rent until those asking for assistance moved to lower cost options used by other ward members. Can someone clarify? Also, I would be interested to know if anyone can offer up some evidence that there are significant fast offering funds going to pay the mortgages on mcmansions in Utah. I suspect this is very much a red herring.

[Clark Addison]

I will just add that, in my limited experience, the disbursement of fast offering funds is possibly the single function that takes the most time, effort, and spiritual discernment by the Bishop. I have had Bishops that I would consider on both the easy and the hard side, but I have been very reluctant to second-guess any of them, and I do not envy their responsibility. While I am sure that we as a Church could do much more, I have seen the tremendous good that comes from this program at the ward level. When multiplied by over 20,000 wards worldwide, the Fast Offering program becomes a huge source of assistance and service in the world. Don't take this the wrong way, I am all for transparancy, self-reflection, and improvement, so I think discussions like this thread are valuable, but I think that they should also exist within the context of the tremendous good that is already done. Call me a Pollyanna if you want.

[ERCougar]

Good question. During my several years as a ward clerk, I've never seen fast offering funds used to pay a mortgage. I'm sure it has happened, but my experience would lead me to believe that there are guidelines to prevent the church from paying on an ongoing basis. Indeed, I had one Bishop that refused to pay rent until those asking for assistance moved to lower cost options used by other ward members. Can someone clarify? Also, I would be interested to know if anyone can offer up some evidence that there are significant fast offering funds going to pay the mortgages on mcmansions in Utah. I suspect this is very much a red herring.

I have no idea if fast offerings are used to specifically pay mortgage payments. However, it doesn't really matter if the check is written to the bank. If people are directing money that would otherwise be used for food or other essentials towards their too-large-for-their-means mortgage payment and the church is then helping them with the "essentials", they might as well be paying the mortgage. People in large homes should not be taking fast offering funds, even if it is for their grocery bill. I doubt this is really common, but I do know of at least one case in my neighborhood. One case is too many, IMO.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I will just add that, in my limited experience, the disbursement of fast offering funds is possibly the single function that takes the most time, effort, and spiritual discernment by the Bishop. I have had Bishops that I would consider on both the easy and the hard side, but I have been very reluctant to second-guess any of them, and I do not envy their responsibility. While I am sure that we as a Church could do much more, I have seen the tremendous good that comes from this program at the ward level. When multiplied by over 20,000 wards worldwide, the Fast Offering program becomes a huge source of assistance and service in the world. Don't take this the wrong way, I am all for transparancy, self-reflection, and improvement, so I think discussions like this thread are valuable, but I think that they should also exist within the context of the tremendous good that is already done. Call me a Pollyanna if you want.

Excellent post.

I have a couple of friends who are bishops. Both said they have never used fast offering money to make house payments. One guy said he was amazed how many people showed up on his first Sunday with their electric bill, however. All claimed that the power was about to get turned off.

[Solon]

This issue was raised by Stephen Robinson in a NT class I took from him at BYU. He talked specificly about his brother-in-law who was a Bishop in Sandy who was making a number of house payments of large mansions during a previous downturn.

That's interesting.

I live in a very depressed area, where my Graduate Lecturer stipend of $17K per year is higher than the county average income. During the winter, in church on Sundays at some of our branches, the leaders tell the members where they can find free firewood to heat their homes. As one of the higher earners in the stake, I (and the members of my ward) pretty regularly receive admonitions to bump up our fast offerings. Every 4 or 5 months, the Elders Quorum has a lesson on church welfare - what it will and won't cover. Every time, the person giving the lesson and the handouts (that's right - we get handouts to distribute to home-teaching families) stress that church funds cannot be used to pay rent or mortgage. Food, utilities, emergency stuff - fine. But no car payments, house payments, or credit-card bills.

I wonder if guidelines have changed, or if this is our stake's rule and not church-wide.

[Clark Addison]

I have no idea if fast offerings are used to specifically pay mortgage payments. However, it doesn't really matter if the check is written to the bank. If people are directing money that would otherwise be used for food or other essentials towards their too-large-for-their-means mortgage payment and the church is then helping them with the "essentials", they might as well be paying the mortgage. People in large homes should not be taking fast offering funds, even if it is for their grocery bill. I doubt this is really common, but I do know of at least one case in my neighborhood. One case is too many, IMO.

I don't think that the shell game, where people get money to pay for food so that they can instead pay for their large house, is much of a problem. In any situation in which I have been involved, no money is disbursed until someone goes in and does a thorough evaluation of the family's finances and budget.

Also, just my opinion, but I feel that your thinking is a little too black and white about it. I think that all of viscerally feel that FO funds should not be used to prop up extravagent or unsustainable lifestyles. Having said that, I can think of several instances where I would not have a problem with funds being used to help someone out who lives in a "large home". And what makes a "large home"? My brother lives in an inner city ward. If you brought his ward out to my home, probably 80% of them would feel that I live in a large and extravagent home. If you asked the saints in a poor ward in Central America or Africa, probably all of our homes would seem luxurious. Does that mean that none of us should qualify for FO funds? I think it is dangerous to make rules about who is worthy for assistance.

Having said that, I think that it is entirely proper, if someone like me needs help, for the Bishop to say "Cancel the satellite and the internet access, and if this takes more than 2 months to resolve, let's get the home on the market."

[Clark Addison]

Every time, the person giving the lesson and the handouts (that's right - we get handouts to distribute to home-teaching families) stress that church funds cannot be used to pay rent or mortgage. Food, utilities, emergency stuff - fine. But no car payments, house payments, or credit-card bills.

OK, I have been defending the Church so far, but as a representative of the Credit Card industry, let me say that in this case, the Church is WRONG. Please pay those credit card bills.