When I was bishop 20 years ago, my Stake President had a rule that if any ward spent more on welfare than they received in fast offerings, then he was to meet with the bishop and review every recipient, and discuss with the bishop what he was doing about getting “under budget”. I think this was done, because just like the wards, the Stake President had to answer to his Area Authority if the Stake spent more that it took in.
My ward averaged about $2000 a month in fast offerings. So $24,000 a year. I never spent more than I took in. There were ten wards in the stake, some way better off financially than mine, and some much less. A good guess for the stake for a year would be about $240,000 in fast offerings.
The SP told us at one of our Bishop Council meetings that our Stake was a net user of fast offering funds, that we spent more than we took in as a stake. He also said that he learned from a regional meeting with a 70 that the USA was a net user of fast offering funds. But then came the kicker. He said that Mexico was a net giver of fast offering funds, or that Mexico gave more than it distributed. So in other words, Mexico was helping to subsidize the USA fast offering expenditures.
Now this was about 17 years ago, and I have no idea if this is still the case, but it really made an impression on the bishops in that meeting. There were poor people in Mexico giving money that was used to help pay the mortgages of $500,000 homes in my stake.
Why do you think this happened? Is it because of the higher standard of living in the USA? Is it because the people of Mexico are used to not having much, and don’t expect the church to help them? A couple of years ago an apostle was talking to the saints in Africa, and told them the church is not wealthy. I cannot find this particular quote, and I think it conveniently disappeared from the church’s web site after the $100 Billion revelation. But it seems to be a theme that the church does not want to project wealth in poor countries, lest you get people joining just for the chance to get money. Even 45 years ago, my mission president in Chile was telling the members that the church was “pato” (Chilean slang for broke). Is this a legitimate concern for the Church?
What do you think is the case today? Is Mexico is still a net giver of fast offering funds, and the USA is a net user?
Wheat & Tares 
I believe 45 years ago, the church actually was broke.
I am still trying to figure out how an average of $2000 per month in your ward equals $12,000 per year rather than $24,000.
I often heard the same statistic about US vs Mexico fast offering funds. Now I wonder if it was really true or a bit of financial sleight of hand. Or just proof the church wasn’t using the funds in the same generous way that members gave.
Part of the answer is local expectations. I have family in Latin America who have needed occasional financial assistance, but it is already known and told that the church will not help. I have never known of a family who have received help in Latin America. I am not stating the church does not help, but the church membership knows not to ask. As a missionary, we even bought food for a family with our personal mission funds (which was against mission rules). I am still amazed how much Latin American families who had nothing, gave to the church and especially the missionaries. They literally fed the missionaries before their own children. 30 years later I am still grateful and embarrassed for accepting so much sacrifice; and I wish the church would stop imposing other members to feed the missionaries. I know the church does not want people to get baptized only to get finances from the North American church, so they have a tight reigns on the fast offering funds. Members are taught only self reliance. Think how much money Latin American Mormon families save the church, by feeding the missionaries.
On the other hand, when newly married, we literally had no money. We just moved to the East for graduate school. We were implored on multiple occasions by the EQ and bishop to accept church assistance. We declined and figured God would bless us and we could get through. I was taught to not ask the church for help, so we did not. (although some members generously helped a few times with items). I think this was because we had a kind bishop, who saw our valid struggles, but still I was taught not to accept.
Over the years being in leadership councils in the USA, I saw the whole gamut. However, I saw frequently fast offering funds went to the semi-active members and frequently for “unnecessary expenses” like cable TV, etc. Some times when the situation was borderline abuse the bishop would have the RS Pres. go to the member house and do an inspection of their food pantry and other belongings. On other occasions, I have seen members who would come to church only 1x/month and then be standing at the bishop door immediately after sacrament waiting for the check. I am not here to judge. Like most of us, we have had financial up’s and down’s in our personal lives and observed the same with many other members. I would hope someone would help me if I were to true dire straits. Some members need money management skills, however since the Bishop is so busy; I suspect sometimes it is easier for the Bishop to write the check instead of having to spend hours and hours of training and follow up, for an adult on learning how to manage money.
Sometimes, those members who in Latin America who could not get church help, move to the Western US and now the church is helping them. I understand the dilemma for the local wards and the church as a whole on this topic. It can be complicated. Even more, now that more members are asking the church for financial transparency the church needs to be transparent.
I think the church was working to address this in part, with the Peripheral Education Fund. however, I think that program results have been mixed and was not administered or managed to help the most people. There have been some success stories and I think it is still a great idea. This program is offered in 3rd world, not 1st world countries. I know some people who applied in Latin America, and were denied; more because of leadership roulette, than qualification criteria.
I want to throw in a plug for Bountiful Children foundation. This is one financial program that the church should be adopting. Unfortunately it is being supported solely from only members. The Q15 even stated, they do not want the 3rd world country members to become dependent on this support (this is nutritional supplements for malnourished infants). ( I completely disagree with the Q15 on this, but that is another topic.)
So the question is, how do we take care of the poor ? We all know what the scriptures admonish us to do. Sometimes we see that some people “cheat the system” and we can develop a “hard heart”. Why is there a different system in USA vs. Latin America ? Are we not all part of the same church ?
I frequently think back to the lessons I learned in Les Miserables. How Bishop Digne responded when the law was broke. I would hope, I would act similarly, but when that moment comes and one has been violated or sees possible abuse, it is not so easy.
I personally have chosen to give my tithing and fast offerings to groups and individuals that my conscious inspires me to do such. That way I know better where the funds go, and I have no disillusionment or regret when I learn that it was used in other ways.
As a former bishop, I can tell you that distributing fast offerings can be very difficult and involve lots of second guessing. I remember one inactive woman with two kids came to me saying she was going to get thrown out of her apartment if she didn’t pay rent. She was living with some guy who didn’t work, and her family refused to help. (in fact, they pleaded with me that I do nothing since she was living in sin and by paying the rent it would just perpetuate the problem). While I didn’t agree with their living situation, I couldn’t ignore the fact that if I did nothing, it was the two young kids that would suffer. In the end I told her that I would pay the portion of the rent for her two kids, since they were innocent in this situation, but it would be up to her and her boyfriend to secure the funds for the remaining half. In addition, I required them to come clean the building for a month so it wasn’t just a handout (she came, he didn’t).
Everything worked out.
Like “Faith” said, there’s a different set of expectations between members south of the border and members in the US. To illustrate this point, I would simply invite anyone who has travelled south of the border to compare the quality of the LDS meetinghouses in North America to those in Mexico/Central America / South America. The buildings I have seen in those countries (I’ve been to about ten countries down there) are buildings that are very nice locally but would never be considered acceptable in the US. Example: every US meeting house has a huge gym…I hardly ever saw this in South America.
I’m not being critical. There’s just a different set of standards. There are probably very few South American members with $500k mortgages for example.
I would also put in a plug for the Bountiful Children’s Foundation. They are a wonderful organization addressing a distressing need of malnourished LDS children in 3rd world countries. I pay my fast offerings to them as I no longer trust the Church to use them for the poor. The financial donation slips have been changed to state that basically the church can do whatever they want with any donations regardless of the category the donor specified. Another common misperception is that excess fast offering funds from one country are used in other poorer countries. I am told that is not the case–but until there is some transparency–who knows?
10ac, thanks for the catch. If it’s not spelling, its math!
This has become a serious problem. Many young members in the U.S. think they need everything the very instant they reach adulthood. Big homes, big cars, big boats, and big screen televisions. They feel they are entitled to these things even though they can’t afford them.
Thus, these folks turn to the bishop. They expect the bishop to use church funds to finance their lifestyle. Unfortunately, it often works. Some bishops don’t want to be the “bad guy” by saying “no.”
It is abominable that lack of self-control leads a bishop in the U.S. to make a mortgage payment on a $500k home so a member can keep his boat and camping trailer, while members in Panama and India live in run down shacks and often go hungry.
If someone has expensive toys and and big house, they should not receive fast offering funds until they have sold the toys and moved to a modest residence. There must be consequences for the entitlement mentality.
Where is our Pope Francis? Why did RMN tell Africa to pay tithing in 2018? In 2017 I heard an apostle attempt to justify our lavish temples and it was sort of a joke.
Definitely some geographic explanations here as already illustrated – US vs elsewhere, Utah vs Pittsburgh, for example.
Sort of unrelated but I felt like the refugee messaging and subsequent efforts in 2016 probably did not work great in wards in Utah, Idaho, Wyoming etc where refugees were essentially out of sight (and not paying large mortgages), but I could be wrong…
I have only been in one ward in the US where I was even a little cognizant off the fast offering ins and outs, and I *think* that ward was temporarily a net consumer of fast offerings.. I don’t actually know for sure.
When I was a missionary we were approached multiple times by inactive members who wanted us to convince the local branch president to provide money from fast offerings. In one case it turned out the person is question had short term memory problems and was not able to make decisions for themselves, and their family was very much against them having anything to do with the church. They didn’t actually need the money, anyway, but their memory issues prevented them from knowing that.
I have a LOT of issues with the church, but the fast offering program is not one of them. I might disagree with some of the decisions about who does or doesn’t receive money, or the conditions that might be given for the money, but the idea that some people voluntarily give some of their surplus funds to be redistributed to others who might need it is something I count as generally a good thing.
“If someone has expensive toys and and big house, they should not receive fast offering funds until they have sold the toys and moved to a modest residence. There must be consequences for the entitlement mentality.”
I wonder how this principle applies to a church that has scandalous wealth and still demands tithing from even its poor members before it will share temple recommends and saving graces. Or practice much in the way of practical charity.
There are so many interesting and frustrating variables involved in this.
I can understand the lower quality of chapels in third world countries. Make them much nicer, and they become a target. I also had a companion who had friend serve in Africa. It wasn’t actually uncommon for former African missionaries who had served in the mission to break into the mission offices to steal money they knew was there. Because of Church mission assistance, they had lived in greater luxury as a missionary than they were now as regular members. This was even after the mission went to fairly great lengths to make the missionaries live in relative poverty while still staying in decent health. This friend spent most of his mission living in hut of branches and straw, ate mostly rice, and was so desperate for meat that at one point he and his companion killed, skinned, and ate a rat that had wandered into their hut. I really do think the Church would do more for members in third world countries, but at what point does helping them put a target on them as well? I imagine there has to be some amount of elevating of the population as a whole before more can come financially. How that comes I’m not entirely sure, though I think attitude is a large part of it, of which I think the Gospel helps.
Attitude is also probably a large part of it in general. As an adult, I’m increasingly perplexed by how one person’s wants is another person’s “needs,” and that’s also true of societies. A lot of these people in third world countries are some of the happiest on the planet. We have a lot we can and should give to them, but I think we have as much or more to learn from them.
I served as a counselor to one Bishop. Just after he was called, he asked a bunch of former Bishops for advice and if they had any regrets. By far, the most common answer was that they wished they had been a little less stingy in using Church finances to help others. I’m still one for believing that the four-wheelers and snowmobiles have to go first, but it’s advice I’d try to heed in the unlikely event that I ever serve in that capacity.
As far as what countries are net givers and users, I’d love to know as well, but given the advancement many active LDS have made in technology in just the last few decades, I doubt the U.S. is a net user any more.
JCS, I have been hearing, since I was a youth 50 years ago, that the youth of the church are “the rising generation” brought forth in these last days to prepare the way for the coming of the Savior. I imagine my grandchildren are still being told this. I wonder how that fits with your attitude that the youth of today as lazy, video watching,gaming, elitists etc. Perhaps you are talking about all youth in general, not just LDS. There are some really great youth, LDS or not, today, and they are facing tremendous pressures. So, do you think they are up to the challenge or not?
It was closer to 60 years ago that the church was broke. 45 years ago it was was in pretty good shape, but some mission presidents may not have gotten the memo.
I remember hearing the “net importer from Mexico” story. I doubt it was ever true, but I really don’t know. I can understand not wanting to foster dependence, but actually drawing money out of the third world is too much. They should be encouraged to spend what they raise.
This is an area where I feel like the ideals taught by the scriptures are in conflict with some logistical practicalities and our financially savvy church tends to err on the side of the latter.
Jesus wanted us to eschew all worldly wealth. The church described in Acts had all things in common. King Benjamin said to give to the poor regardless of whether we think they qualify for our help. The church did not amass their insanely vast fortune by following these principles. It’s hard to financially help others without some capital to move around, and you don’t amass capital by giving your money away to everyone who asks for it. As others have said, not many easy answers here.
Are we sure that most of the fast offerings are really going to pay $500,000 mortgages? I’m sure this has happened, but to take that anecdote and suggest it’s representative of the outflows seems extremely implausible. We know the U.S. has great inequality and a weak safety net. I don’t think it should be that surprising that more gets spent than is collected. The idea that middle class families are taking all the fast offerings seems like a “welfare queen” narrative.
Bishop Bill, I don’t want to say that the Seventy was lying to your Stake President, but I think he might have been lying — at the very least he was almost certainly citing some funky accounting to make that assertion work. I have lived and served in Mexico — in some of the wealthiest areas in the country — and I can tell you with 100% certainty that even those “wealthy” stakes in which I lived spent more on fast offerings than they took in; there just aren’t enough wealthy wards or stakes to make this math work. This also just doesn’t make any sense given the USD-MXN exchange rates; active, tithe & offering paying membership numbers; and what I have observed as the general socioeconomic circumstances of most Mexican saints.
The only way this could possibly be true is if the majority of Stakes in Mexico are extraordinarily stingy with their offerings, which unfortunately isn’t necessarily out of the question. I have seen several stake leaders set extremely high bars for fast offering disbursements, not to mention Mexican stakes require several more pieces of paperwork to justify fast offering expenditures than I have seen in the US, thus creating a higher opportunity cost for Bishops to disburse those funds.
josh h, the one exception to the rule on church buildings outside the USA are temples. I attended the Temple in Mexico City years ago, and commented to my wife that their bathrooms where probably the nicest in all of Mexico
The global fast offering system is broken, particularly in developing countries. I think we can agree on this. The solution is certainly complicated. But it needs to be unraveled.
The problem is much bigger than just fast offering. Tithing and allocation of the resources is the “elephant in the room.” The Church needs to decide what it’s core mission is. Is it the dead or the living that are our priority? Prez. Monsoon added assisting the poor to the Church’s other 3 missions; we need to decide if we are serious. Tokenism does count.
Half of the current membership lives in developing countries. They and their neighbors need help. Educational assistance, job assistance, nutrition and drinking water, sanitation infrastructure, vaccinations, medicine; things we take for granted in the developed world. Members need to consider how they donate their money.
Roger Hansen,
The distinguishing you’ve made now and in the past with regards to work for the living and the dead has not gone unnoticed. My question is whether making it a question of either/or is really the right one. For one, I think it’s really two sides of the same coin. I personally experience less of tendency to think in terms of living and dead, and more in terms of children of God in general. Additionally, the longer I continue to attend the temple–and notwithstanding nor minimizing salvation for the dead–the more convinced I am it’s for the living, not the dead. I will readily admit that to any outside or casual observer, the idea of Temple work seems completely ridiculous and ludicrous. If not for a spiritual witness some time ago, I’d likely still have a hard time with it, and not value the real service it provides those on the other side. But what’s also true for me is that no matter how great my efforts to be virtuous, generous, loving, patient, charitable, and all other good humane and godly qualities there are, attending the temple regularly nearly always results in amplifying my ability to do all those things.
Obviously anybody can be quite good and generous without attending the temple. I just don’t know that we can quantify just how much more good and generous they might be by doing so. And no, not everyone has my same attitude, but I do wonder just how often a single trip to the temple results in a more generous fast offering that might not have occurred otherwise.
In short, I see nothing wrong with the Church seeking to improve humanity on multiple fronts, rather than eliminating or placing less emphasis on those avenues, because I think the results of these efforts play off of each other more than we can measure.
All those needs you mentioned in your last paragraph I’m pretty sure I’ve seen the Church address on multiple occasions. Just how far those things extend outside membership admittedly varies.
Eli,
For me, genealogy is more of a hobby that a Christian mission. Squaring the opulence of the temple is difficult to justify. And why can’t work for the dead be accomplished during the millennium?
With membership numbers stagnating, is there really a need for additional expensive temples? They appear to be legacy items for GAs.
The Church’s efforts related to global humanitarian efforts are a modest effort. They have the resources to do much much more. But I’m a broken record.
The Church is losing it’s young. Helping the living might provide a good, Christ-like reason to stay.
When my husband was bishop during an economic downturn, both stake presidents he served under counseled to err on the side of mercy.
He pointed out that the handbook stated for bishops to seek out those who need assistance. It didn’t specify being an active member, or even being a member of the church.
While I know that the church underutiluzes its resources, bishops still have a lot of discretion, if they choose to use it.
During my tenure as a ward financial clerk, my ward consistently paid out about twice the amount of fast offerings it was taking in, year after year after year. In one recent year (pre-covid) it was about $30K in disbursements against $15K in donations. My bishop tended to err on the side of generosity when approached for financial assistance, but I’m not aware that he was ever asked by the SP to reign it in. He never made a big deal of it at all, except to gently put the squeeze on the more financially stable members during tithing settlement time, encouraging them to “give a little bit more generously this next year”. Whether or not the other wards in the stake were able to absorb the shortfall, I have no idea, but I suppose it could have been possible.
In fairness, my ward has more socio-economic diversity (including more transients and financially insecure members) than most of the wards in the stake, and I’m sure the SP was aware of the additional burden on my bishop.
As I had to co-sign the checks, I saw exactly who got fast offering relief, for what, and how much. The majority of the money went to pay rent and utilities for people who were barely active, but in most cases these were people who had little to no opportunity or ability to improve their own circumstances. And I also saw plenty of people who abused the system. While I was generally OK with how the money was spent, I was also disappointed that we weren’t doing enough to help people help themselves and become more self sufficient in whatever way they could; instead we were cultivating lifelong dependence. The Church’s financial self reliance program is garbage; it’s run like a 12-step program and stigmatizes poverty by treating it like a moral failing. I made numerous attempts to offer to help improve the way we handle financial assistance and self-reliance in the ward, but my bishop rejected or ignored every suggestion. The only financial “counseling” these people were receiving was a few minutes with the bishop (a dentist with a sport boat in his driveway) before picking up their check each week. Eventually, I was released and he was promoted to stake president (go figure!).
The Church is really good at providing assistance for the short term but if they fail miserably for helping in the long term. If a person is disabled and cant work or homeless they are not interested. Christ said feed the Hungary.
“And why can’t work for the dead be accomplished during the millennium?”
Totally agree, Roger Hansen.
People are real. The needs in our midst are real. They are vast and deep. Addressing them are the real teachings of Jesus.
@rogerdhansen “The Church’s efforts related to global humanitarian efforts are a modest effort. They have the resources to do much much more. But I’m a broken record.”
Thank you for being a broken record. Both in word and in deed you have been a great advocate and example for using resources to help vulnerable populations. Your work is inspiring.
At an institutional level there is the potential to do great things but it requires listening to experts, pulling together vast resources, and shifting some focus. It can require rolling up our sleeves and getting messy.
Many of our ancestors fled poverty and oppression to join with the saints. How proud it would make them if we could join together and use our institutional resources to temporally lift those around us who suffer.
“And why can’t work for the dead be accomplished during the millennium?”
Maybe I’m just misunderstanding the doctrine, but it’s my understanding that those who have accepted all ordinances will come forth at the first resurrection, at the beginning of the millennium. If I’m reading Doctrine and Covenants correctly, any extra time spent as a spirit really does feel like a form of prison compared to life with a body, even for the righteous, hence the sense of urgency that often accompanies the work. Why make any unnecessary delays? I personally believe those who have accepted so far in the spirit world will outnumber those who have in mortality.
I can’t argue with the hemorrhaging of youth. I do think the bloggernacle exaggerates it a bit. I also think there are probably a number of other more effective ways to keep youth around than eliminating temple work.
“People are real.”
As if those who have passed on somehow aren’t anymore? I really can’t accept that it can only be either/or.
It’s not earth’s previous inhabitants that aren’t real, it’s that doctrine that’s not.
I cannot reconcile Jesus as related in the New Testament or Book of Mormon to equating temple work with alleviating the human needs in our own neighborhoods, and far beyond.
If you saw a wandering, disoriented elderly person on your way to the temple, could you pass by, to save a soul who has gone beyond?
For a church that believes in an all loving, omnipotent God, we sure can attribute some lacking teachings to Him.
I’m not suggesting we abandon work for the dead. Just give it a lower priority. As for the dead waiting for us, eternity is a long time. They can wait. The poor need our help now. Life on earth is short. And they are suffering.
I’m also suggesting that helping the poor might resonate with the young more than work for the dead. I think you misunderstood me.
“To infinity and beyond.”
“If you saw a wandering, disoriented elderly person on your way to the temple, could you pass by, to save a soul who has gone beyond?”
I can probably count on one hand those I know who would. I think that’s fairly obvious.
“it’s that doctrine that’s not.”
Like most discussions here, a lot of it simply comes down to what we believe. For some of us it’s very real. The fact that for you, it’s simply not doctrine, simplifies the discussion immensely. Point taken.
Roger Hansen,
I understood you. I was mistaken in saying either/or, since you’ve also admitted both can be done with varying emphases. Personally, the youth in my ward, though few, seem to enjoy temple work overall. I do think the Spirit of Elijah is more infectious than we give it credit. We can at least give it a chance to set in, and let it inspire the more temporal welfare we seek to provide in our lives.
I’m also for doing more for the living, but I’d love to see that as much or more on a personal level than Church-wide. Bringing it somewhat back around, who’s to say the Church isn’t doing all it can (per capita)? I personally think the Church is planning for the long haul, and I can’t blame them. As much as we’d like to ignore politics, cultural barriers, economics, sociology, and criminology, these are all very real factors in helping other countries. I admire other Christian Churches that head full bore into a situation to help. We sometimes see this come back to bite them, and I think we’ll see it more and more often in times to come. We had one couple in our ward from South Africa. Years ago they raised local money for a new chapel, got it built, then just before the first meeting the South African government decided it needed it more, and simply confiscated it. I’m sure the Church would prefer to avoid a similar situation with regards to help for the poor being unceremoniously rerouted to those who are less poor and far more corrupt. It’s easy for us to armchair quarterback from a first world country. I’ll reserve some judgment of the Church in these regards. As far as my own country goes, I’m more inclined to think it’s individual members who need to step up more, not the Church.
I spoke with a man who lived and worked in a developing country. The typical member ate one meal a day – usually rice or beans. Some went without eating for two days to have the equivalent of two meals to donate to fast offerings. The bishop said that his problem was that he could offer very little fast offering help to just a couple of families a month. It was almost nothing. The other wards in the stake were in the same boat so there was little to share. There is a mechanism for requesting funds from the greater church, but there were several layers of approval required before funds would be made available – and a significant time delay if approved. He said that it was cumbersome and that it was too little too late. SPs rarely made a request, subjected to humiliating questioning from those above him as to why his stake was not self sufficient.
I had always supposed that fast offerings were held in a special fund until needed. That is not the case, after a brief period of time, unused funds just get dumped into Ensign Peak. As far as fast offering needs go, there is never excess laid up in the storehouse to be used when times are bad. And we now know that the big fund never gets tapped when they are.
There was a time last century when a supplicant would be denied fast offering help if they received any sort of government welfare – it was disqualifying. Somewhere along the way that changed. I don’t think that’s a bad thing, but it shows how easily “righteous” anti government welfare “principles” can be abandoned when there is a buck to be saved.
I always felt best about FO. It still is the most charitable of the offerings – but all excess is just another revenue line item to the church.
Marketers have found that millennials and younger respond to the causes of a brand, voting with their dollars in favor of companies whose values align with their own. How much longer can the church expect to retain their young when their values appear to be greed, American exceptionalism, supremacy, patriarchy, and anti-LGBTQ+? Five years? Ten on the outside?
“I had always supposed that fast offerings were held in a special fund until needed. That is not the case, after a brief period of time, unused funds just get dumped into Ensign Peak. As far as fast offering needs go, there is never excess laid up in the storehouse to be used when times are bad. And we now know that the big fund never gets tapped when they are.”
I’m genuinely curious as to where you learned this. I didn’t think there was a huge excess for that matter. I had an area authority as an institute teacher a few years ago. He said member donations after the 2004 tsunami disaster resulted in the first time the Church did not have to dip into tithing to meet its charitable needs and goals. If that was the case then, I can’t imagine it’s gotten much better now.
Eli
Fast offerings as opposed to humanitarian, disaster, and other charitable uses. I made no comment on the amount of any excesses, just that they are not held separately for future fast offering needs.
Just like all other member donations (per the disclaimer on the donation slip) they are ultimately applied as the church deems fit rather than as designated by the donor.
At any rate, it appears that the church has an annual excess of $1 billion (from tithes) after meeting all of its operational and building needs. That’s a pretty good chunk of change.
Oh, gotcha. Thank you.
I recently received a request for financial assistance from a member (whose also a friend) in a developing country. He works in the tourist industry and there are no tourist. COVID is currently very problematic in his country. He holds a high Church position. Where is the Church? Where is the support for members? This is very troubling.
“Bringing it somewhat back around, who’s to say the Church isn’t doing all it can (per capita)?”
Speaking on behalf of everyone on this thread except for you, I think we are all saying this. If that’s too bold, then fine. I’m saying this.
Oho! Nice.
To be clear, I was referring directly to offerings that make their way to third world countries. If you’re referring to the 100 billion as well, that’s another story, and one that’s been beaten to a pulp here. Look, I’m not one for outsourcing all my thinking and opinions to the Church and other experts on all things helping the poor, but unless you and everyone else here has firmer grasp of third world political rivalry, intertribal politics, cultural taboos, drug trafficking hot spots, and transportation infrastructure, then these criticisms seem to lack a bit in credibility. If you do have a firmer grasp, then by all means let the criticism flow, along with the condescending snark that so often seems a signature here now.
Eli, a couple of responses. First, true the $100 Billion has been widely criticized. As it should be. Until there is an explanation and more action, it should be “beaten to death.” For example, but not 2% of Africa has been vaccinated against Covid. That is unacceptable. I would hate to report to St Peter that I had that kind of wealth, and did little or nothing.
Second, I spend 2 month a year in Uganda. I’m not an expert, but I have enough knowledge to know the Church can do more, a lot more.
Third, Sure we individuals should do more. But think how much individual members could do if there was a broader definition of tithing.
A number of thoughts here:
First, I’ve had problems with getting laid off from work. Most of it was reduction in force not under my control. Yet, I had one Bishop talk about voluntarily shifting the burden of support to the Church being wrong. It was suspected we were living extravagantly, while we were not. It was made worse by my having depression & slight Autism, and, having 3 sons with Autism, which was a sign to that Bishop than I was also a bad parent. In even earlier times, I had the Employment Specialist in Provo give me a song & dance about buying a more fuel efficient car, but, the monthly payments would have several times what I would save in gas each month! Yet, he had no good job leads.
I think of back some years ago, having fellow Missionaries who would abuse the Mission’s cars they had. This led to unneeded maintenance expenses for the Mission. The responsibility for that was lacking for a while.
There are some Bishops who “fix” too many Welfare situations by forcing people in need to move out of their Wards, I’ve seen that happen. And, I remember, as a Fast Offering Clerk,using the Ward’s data base of Tithes & Offering to see who was not giving to Fast Offerings, and, targeting those blue FO collection envelopes that are brought by YM visiting, towards those families. I had one family blow a fuse about saying that they already gave, to never send them a collection envelope again, yet, the records showed other wise.
The Ensign Peak Advisors seems concerning, since the Church has told member that they can’t eat a 401K in a disaster, so, what is to keep EP from going under in a massive crisis? Remember the woes of the Kirtland era financial crisis?
Now , about stop Temple work until the poor are taken care of: Why can’t we do both at the same time? My wife had a reply to someone saying that they were going to wait until the Millennium to start their Family History, to make sure it’s error free. She said he would likely have ancestors that wanted to kick him in the rump, for putting off what he could have started, *before* the Millennium!
Roger, thank you for your points. You’ve given me a few things to ponder.
It’s a point beside the point, but I’ve read and heard from multiple sources that Africa, as a continent (taking into account the relative comparison of their medical infrastructure as well), is doing far better than any other continent when it comes to Covid. I wonder if that’s one reason for less vaccination there, and I mean not just getting it from the Church. You’d obviously know better than I would.
I get where you’re coming from on tithing. My great grandfather was an amazing person and preferred to “tithe” as he saw fit. I personally try to budget for charity beyond tithes and offerings, but understand there a far worse things to be judged on.
Eli
While you’re having a moment of thoughtful perception, may I point out that many who participate with this blog have inhabited the space where you seem to be? The scriptures you quote are not unfamiliar to most who come here. Many have held, and continue to hold, respected positions at church.
I don’t know all their stories, but I suppose that they’ve had experiences that were like a whack on the side of the head. I think mostly it’s not an easy process, and figuring out what their new normal is is difficult, and requires time and reflection. The process is further compounded for them, and those around them, because the dynamic affects their closest relationships.
I don’t know how well you’ll ever understand, but if you are unable to understand, at least consider and try to follow the principles in the Eleventh Article of Faith.
Listening can be enriching.
Sasso wrote ” may I point out that many who participate with this blog have inhabited the space where you seem to be?”
With respect, “seem” is the key word here. I realize there a lot of backgrounds here– active but lacking in testimony, unorthodox testimony, true Gospel believer but no respect for the Church as it stands today, among many, many others. I get that. My biggest hang-up with W&T and its commenters–and this links a bit back to a comment I made on BB’s last post–isn’t the varying backgrounds. It isn’t even the idea that people believe differently than I do. It’s the assumption I see over and over again that because I check a lot of the boxes that meets the appearance of “clueless Mormon,” it means I haven’t experienced anything close to what they have.
It’s true, by virtue of differing personalities, I will never experience exactly what you or anyone else here has. But I’m willing to bet I’ve come close a few times. Yes, there is a good chunk of Church and Gospel that has stuck with me since primary and hasn’t changed. There are also some things that eat at other people but process through me with my testimony and intellectual integrity still intact. But I’ve also been “whacked in the head” a few times. For some of these things, it’s involved some grueling personal introspection, rough intellectual and spiritual journeying, and increased tolerance for others as I experience that need. Some of those whacks I’m still recovering from. For many, however, I’ve completed what I thought was a linear journey, only to find I’ve come full circle back to the “primary answers” in a more powerful way than I ever had before. When the results of those experiences get smacked with a “clueless Mormon” label, I’ll admit that bugs me a bit.
“consider and try to follow the principles in the Eleventh Article of Faith.”
You’re frequenting and participating in a public blog that frequently criticizes the Church, often highlights supposed small-mindedness and closed-mindedness in active or conservative members, and uses tags that will often inadvertently (or purposely) attract many objects of that criticism, and you feel I need to review the Eleventh Article of Faith?
I have about 9-12 reasons for coming here. Somewhere in the middle is the desire to get out of my comfort zone, be challenged, and think about stuff in ways I may not have before. I would be selfish not to at least sincerely return the favor from time to time. You can claim to have heard it all before or dismiss it. For me, it’s just not that simple.
I’ve hinted at it before, but if the bloggers and commenters of W&T really would prefer simply to rejoice and or commiserate in their own unorthodox or liberal ways and not be bothered by active members (no matter what the spiritual journey of that member is), then they really need to change the description of the blog and the commenting policy. If it codified the exclusive club vibe it often gives off, decency would compel me to respect that even more.
“Listening can be enriching.”
You wouldn’t know it from this discussion, but I keep my fingers still far more often than not. I read most every post, but probably comment, on average, on one or two posts a week–three on rare occasions. Learning about the views of others is one of my number one reasons for coming here, and it’s probably affected me far more than you’ll realize. You’ll have to forgive me if it’s not in a way you might be hoping.
Thank you for sharing how you feel misjudged by others who comment on W&T. I’m happy for you that everything so far has been able to return to the primary answers.
Many on here do, in fact, share their stories. Sometimes explicitly, sometimes in bits and pieces. They paint a meaningful picture that has contributed to their outlook.
Others do not, at least outwardly. You may have to dig a little deeper to figure out how their words and viewpoints reflect some profound life experiences.
Sometimes the story is not theirs to tell, but it has left an impact on them.
All people are multidimensional. Trying to fit them into pigeonholes of our own creation doesn’t really work very well. Testimonies are not just words, it’s how we live our lives. I recall that Jesus told a parable about that.
“All people are multidimensional. Trying to fit them into pigeonholes of our own creation doesn’t really work very well.”
It occurs to me we’re basically trying to tell each other the exact same thing. Yeah, I’ll try harder. I hope the W&T community as a whole can do the same. When I try my absolute best to picture myself as person who has never even heard of a Mormon before, who then stumbles onto this blog, I’m still not sure I’d get an accurate view of what one is (which, as you hint, is part of the point given our varied backgrounds), but I’d come away thinking many of the “active” ones are ignorant, largely devoid of free-thinking, and unwilling to take on new ideas. While I personally think this is largely inaccurate, I think it also ultimately puts the W&T community in kind of bad light. For many here, I imagine a lot of the discussions are therapeutics which I also get. It might take a while for a complete outsider to comprehend that.
Thanks for engaging and responding.
Perhaps a side effect of frequenting W&T is a therapeutic factor. When so much in the world seems distorted, it’s validating to find like-minded people.
It occurs to me that it is difficult for you to find strengths in others who may see things differently than you do. I was providing tools to help you find good in many of the W&T crowd, many of whom likely make meaningful contributions to their families, wards, and communities. Their comments here are often substantive and worthwhile. The parable I referred to is the parable of the two sons in Matthew 21.
From your comments, I get that you’d like to be seen in a nuanced way. That will be accomplished more easily if it is mutual.
I agree that there is value in recognizing different perspectives. That doesn’t mean that others will agree with your viewpoint, any more than you find value in many OPs and comments made here.
Maybe I’m better off leaving on your note.
“It occurs to me that it is difficult for you to find strengths in others who may see things differently than you do.”
Admittedly, I’m still struggling reconciling any intentions real and sincere in what you may be trying to do here with the sarcasm I’ve experienced in past discussions we’ve had, but this still feels a little condescending. At no point have I ever expected anyone to flat-out agree with me, nor has it been one of my primary goals here. I do make some efforts to rail against certain stereotypes I see perpetuated here from time to time.
I make introspection a regular part of my routine. The nuances of those here were actually one of the first things I noticed about the blog. However much I may disagree with your assessment of me, however, I will try harder to see those nuances and strengths, if only for its own sake.
“For a church that believes in an all loving, omnipotent God, we sure can attribute some lacking teachings to Him.”
That would be the Catholic God. As they describe God and you seem to echo, all forms of life would exist in stasis, never suffering, never dying; and necessarily also never giving birth. Never learning a lesson because there is nothing to learn and no need for learning.
But since that is clearly not the case, one of these words or interpretations is not correct. Perhaps “all loving” is not correctly understood; either it isn’t “all” or God’s idea of love isn’t yours. How about “omnipotent”? Many people thinks this means God can do anything, even things that cannot be done.
But scripture records Jesus as complaining that he cannot do miracles among his own people. “He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. And he was amazed at their lack of faith. (Mark 6:5–6)”
The implication is that some things cannot be done; not, at least, if your free agency is to continue.
Fast offerings benefit the giver of a gift (me) and the recipient of a gift (someone else). I doubt it is meant to excuse you of any and all other opportunities for charity and service to your neighbors.