The Church publishes it's financial information...

[_ldsfaqs]

2. No tithing was spent on helping the poor and the needy nor humanitarian aid.

The mental defect of the OP as usual doesn't surprise me.

"Tithing" money isn't used in the LDS Church for "the poor" and otherwise, other money's are.

Doesn't the idiot know that "Fast Offerings" are what go to the poor and needy, and according to his own quoted states 1.6 Million were received, and 1.7 Million were given out, not to mention the other "services" that are given to the community and to the members themselves.

The fact that a religion has "operating costs", oh heavens for bid. Let's bring out the mob and the pitchforks!

I don't see you all chastising ALL other charitable organizations which all operate pretty much the same way, but don't generally have the same "infrastructure" to deal with, thus obviously with a religion there is going to be more that goes into the Church itself, than goes into the pockets of the poor and needy. Further, this idiot ignores the fact that the Church PREVENTS people from being poor and needy, by first training them to be better quality people, and second by teaching them HOW to fish, rather than only giving them a fish and remaining forever SLAVES to the man.

Tisk tisk :(

[_ldsfaqs]

The Church claims that "one hundred percent of the donations given to the Church’s humanitarian services are used for relief efforts." Can you show otherwise?

Yes

In the published financial statements of the Church for the year ending December 2009:
Humanitarian aid fund
Donations received - £344,000
Expenditure - £11,000

Nevo, care to comment further?

Yes, it's a FUND moron..... Those donation and expenditure numbers are for THAT YEAR ONLY....

You even "acknowledged" that the Church operated in 2009 at a $11 Mill whatever deficiency, where do you think that money came from? FUNDS the Church operates.

Maybe you also didn't know it, but the wealthy of the world have been supporting the poor of the world for a long time, including in the Church. The U.S. ALONE gives more to Charity than ALL other Countries COMBINED. So, get off your high horse!

[_ldsfaqs]

No, loving one's neighbor remains essential. And the fullest expression of such love, as Paul recognized, is to work for humanity's salvation and exaltation (cf. Moses 1:39).

And this is why religion remains the number one perverter of human values.

Actually, people like YOU are the number one perverter of moral values, Atheists who think they are smarter than everyone else, thus end up with generations of wicked adulterous children. I won't say human, because human can refer to anything.

Religions are the primarily creator of generations of righteous people.
Atheists create generations of wicked and self-serving. All one has to do is watch human nature. Without God, the people become wicked over time.

[_ldsfaqs]

$6 per member. Just imagine if tithing were actually used to help people - the good that could be done.

Yes, just imagine, then there would be no "Church" to speak of idiots!!!

Since when did service to our fellow man only mean MONEY????
Are you people really this "dunce"?

Tithing money goes into the Church, and what does the Church do? It provides services for the membership. It teaches people, it saves people, it exalts people, on and on.

Maybe you idiots think none of that is important, but we do. The SAVING OF SOULS is our most important work.

[_ldsfaqs]

Do the funds for Humanitarian Aid collected in the UK, stay in the UK, or does it go to Salt Lake?

Salt Lake.

Or in other words, are all decisions regarding Humanitarian Aid made in Salt Lake or does the nation whose members donated the funds have any say in the distribution of said funds?

Of course they have a say, whatever is needed is given.
Further, they know what the funds are for, that is to go where-ever there is the most need.

We have of course Bishop's Storehouses which distribute groceries etc., to needy members, and Deseret Farms UK which help provide some of the produce which fill the storehouses in the UK, but I should imagine that a lot of the Deseret produce that is used over here in the UK is imported from the US Saints.

I would also like to make clear that the Bishop's Storehouse is available to ANYONE in the Bishop's district that has need. Non-Members are able to receive of the storehouse.

[_ldsfaqs]

Yes, I think they received a subsidy of circa £1.59 million if memory serves me right - one of the largest subsidies given in the UK.

There is no excuse for this kind of stupidity. Do the British taxpayers know their government is subsidizing the LDS church?

Not that my government is any smarter. *sigh*

The subsidy is not subsidizing "the Church" LADY! :( It is subsidizing PUBLIC companies that are privately held which are simply owned by the Church. The companies service the people of Britain, not the Church.

Just like in the U.S. The Church owns all kinds of companies that have nothing to do with the Church, from TV Stations, to Radio Stations, to Farms, and all kinds of other businesses. These are publicly operated

[_ajax18]

Jesus didn't give "everything" he had to the poor, and generally didn't require others to.

I wonder if it matters to the rich young ruler that Jesus didn't require most people to sell all they have and give it to the poor. If you were the one who had to give up the deed to your farm, does it make you feel better that a bunch of other people didn't and yet are worthy to inherit all that the young ruler is not? I think Christ is more fair than that.

[*]He accepted expensive gifts, acknowledging that they could have been used instead to help the poor (see, e.g., John 12:1-8). His instruction to his disciples was: "You always have the poor with you, and whenever you want, you can do good for them. But you will not always have me." (Mark 14:7).[/list]

I think more highly of Jesus than that. I must be missing something from that story because to me it just doesn't add up.

[_ajax18]

It teaches people, it saves people, it exalts people, on and on.

Could the Church do this without providing the upper leadership six figure salaries comparable to that of other corporate managers? If this type of compensation is not what is going on, why doesn't the Church open the books and resolve the controversy. They seem very quick to point out that the LDS Church has no paid clergy. Wouldn't it be more fair to tell the whole truth?

[_ldsfaqs]

It teaches people, it saves people, it exalts people, on and on.

Could the Church do this without providing the upper leadership six figure salaries comparable to that of other corporate managers? If this type of compensation is not what is going on, why doesn't the Church open the books and resolve the controversy. They seem very quick to point out that the LDS Church has no paid clergy. Wouldn't it be more fair to tell the whole truth?

Maybe you've missed it..... But the leadership of the Church doesn't get their "living stipend" from the "Church" side. They get it form the Corporate side. Further, from what I know their stipends are actually MUCH LESS than most corporate CEO's. Further, all of these men are self made men, having had their own lives, careers and businesses for much of their lives, and volunteered the rest of the time for the Church long before being called, by no action of their own to be Apostles.

Our Church is run NOTHING like any other Church, and yet you all are so paranoid about seeing the finances. Further, the Church is "audited" by various firms, and when-ever there has been a problem, it's dealt with. But, the Church functions so perfectly, that there is rarely a problem. It's SYSTEM was established by God, and it's amazing how perfect and non-corrupting it is.

Further, what "controversy".....? Do you yell "FIRE" when there is no smoke???

Even further, it's only the "Church" side that is kept private. The Corporate side of the Church is entirely open according to corporate law. We know who the boards of directors are, we know who operates the various company's, the financial portfolio's of whatever company are open to the shareholders, etc. etc. Again, what is the problem???

[_Equality]

Further, from what I know their stipends are actually MUCH LESS than most corporate CEO's.

Are they less than what Peter, James, and John, et al. received? Are you seriously comparing the apostles' remuneration with what corporate CEO's receive? I thought these were suppose to be pious, righteous men of God, whose kingdom is not of this world but the next? And you compare their salaries to what the Kings of Babylon receive? Is that the best you can do?