Financial Statements for the Church(UK) 2005

[_guy sajer]

I'm on board with others who contend that the amount of money donated by the Lord's one true church to humanitarian causes is piddling relative to the church's resources. It appears to value spending money to help the dead over spending money to help the living. How weird is that?

While I agree to a certain extent and would like to see more given to humatarian things I think you overstate the under statement. Also the Church does have lots of physical property to maintain and that takes a big chunk of what it brings in. Also, it believes one of its main missions, that even may override human relief type work is preaching and taking what they believe is salvation to the world both in missionary work and in temple work. That is costly as well.

I cannot recall offhand the actual charitable contributions as a % of LDS resources, but I do recall that it is a very, very minimal percentage. In absolute amounts it may or may not be significant, but in relative terms, I believe that it is puny. Somebody who has the time or inclination can go look it up to determine whether I'm right or wrong.

It is one, of many, pieces of evidence that the Mormon Church is not what it claims to be.

And why is that and what bearing does this have on what it claims to be?

The LDS Church claims to be the one and only "true" and legitimate representative of Jesus Christ on the earth. It is very difficult to my mind to reconcile the corporate structure, values, organization, and mindset that permeate the Church and its leadership. One would, I think, reasonably expect the heir of Jesus Christ to show more concern for the poor and downtrodden of the world and a bit less in developing a diversified portfolio of businesses into which it is sinking, literally, billions of dollars, an amount that drawfs by multiples the relatively puny amount it is investing in alleviating the burden of those who stand in material and other need.

The LDS Church looks and acts like a corporation; it is the very emobidment of establishment corporate conformity. I don't see anything anywhere in the New Testament that would lead one to believe that this is the type of institution that Jesus Christ would establish were he truly at its helm.

By itself it's probably not enough evidence against the Church's truth claims, but taken in consideration with everything else, it certainly fits and is yet one more piece of evidence that we're dealing with a man made, and not divine, institution.

Finally, I understand fully that a mission of the LDS Church is to redeem the dead (or however they phrase it), but I do not find that compelling. With all the suffering in the world, it is tragic waste to spend so much money on the dead, who are way past feeling the benefits. I see no excuse for ignoring the needy living to benefit the dead. It is a perversion of priorities and yet one more piece of evidence that the LDS Church is not the heir of Jesus Christ.

[_William Schryver]

Guy Sajer:

The LDS Church claims to be the one and only "true" and legitimate representative of Jesus Christ on the earth. It is very difficult to my mind to reconcile the corporate structure, values, organization, and mindset that permeate the Church and its leadership. One would, I think, reasonably expect the heir of Jesus Christ to show more concern for the poor and downtrodden of the world and a bit less in developing a diversified portfolio of businesses into which it is sinking, literally, billions of dollars, an amount that drawfs by multiples the relatively puny amount it is investing in alleviating the burden of those who stand in material and other need.

You don't know what you're talking about.

As of two years ago (when it was reported during a church-wide Priesthood Leadership satellite broadcast that I attended) the Church had given, purely in the form of "Humanitarian Aid" over a billion U.S. dollars in the previous 10 years. This does not include the Fast Offering disbursements worldwide, which amounted to several hundreds of millions of dollars in the same decade.

So, you can criticize the "organization" of the church all you want. It does share many similar aspects with modern multi-national businesses. But to say that the amounts it gives to alleviate the burdens of those who stand in need are "relatively puny" is patently untrue. In fact, when you consider (as often touted on this message board) that there are probably fewer than 3 million "active" Latter-day Saints worldwide, and that this relatively small number of people are responsible for such charitable generosity, I find it very remarkable indeed -- and without parallel in today's world.

[_guy sajer]

Guy Sajer:

The LDS Church claims to be the one and only "true" and legitimate representative of Jesus Christ on the earth. It is very difficult to my mind to reconcile the corporate structure, values, organization, and mindset that permeate the Church and its leadership. One would, I think, reasonably expect the heir of Jesus Christ to show more concern for the poor and downtrodden of the world and a bit less in developing a diversified portfolio of businesses into which it is sinking, literally, billions of dollars, an amount that drawfs by multiples the relatively puny amount it is investing in alleviating the burden of those who stand in material and other need.

You don't know what you're talking about.

As of two years ago (when it was reported during a church-wide Priesthood Leadership satellite broadcast that I attended) the Church had given, purely in the form of "Humanitarian Aid" over a billion U.S. dollars in the previous 10 years. This does not include the Fast Offering disbursements worldwide, which amounted to several hundreds of millions of dollars in the same decade.

So, you can criticize the "organization" of the church all you want. It does share many similar aspects with modern multi-national businesses. But to say that the amounts it gives to alleviate the burdens of those who stand in need are "relatively puny" is patently untrue. In fact, when you consider (as often touted on this message board) that there are probably fewer than 3 million "active" Latter-day Saints worldwide, and that this relatively small number of people are responsible for such charitable generosity, I find it very remarkable indeed -- and without parallel in today's world.

I am referring to humaniarian contributions relative to total revenues, which is somewhere, I believe, in the low single digits. If true, THAT is in no way as remarkable as you claim; rather, it is piddling. But then I am willing to concede I am wrong; let's produce the actual figures and we can see.

There was a thread on The Foyer on this topic some time ago. If someone wants to dig it out of the archives, the information is there. Let's see.

[_Who Knows]

You don't know what you're talking about.

As of two years ago (when it was reported during a church-wide Priesthood Leadership satellite broadcast that I attended) the Church had given, purely in the form of "Humanitarian Aid" over a billion U.S. dollars in the previous 10 years. This does not include the Fast Offering disbursements worldwide, which amounted to several hundreds of millions of dollars in the same decade.

So, you can criticize the "organization" of the church all you want. It does share many similar aspects with modern multi-national businesses. But to say that the amounts it gives to alleviate the burdens of those who stand in need are "relatively puny" is patently untrue. In fact, when you consider (as often touted on this message board) that there are probably fewer than 3 million "active" Latter-day Saints worldwide, and that this relatively small number of people are responsible for such charitable generosity, I find it very remarkable indeed -- and without parallel in today's world.

How do you know what's 'puny', and what's a lot? What are you comparing this against? What is one billion in relation total church revenues & assets?

General Electric regularly gives over $100 million to charity each year. You can find out how many employees they have, what their revenues and assets are, etc. So you can get a relative picture of how they are doing with their charitable giving.

Not so with the church.

Anyhow, let's look at this $1 billion over 10 years:

That's about $100 million per year. Let's go ultra conservative, and say that there's only 1 million active members (you said 3 million, but I'll give you a big benefit of the doubt).

That works out to $100 per member per year.

Is it 'puny'? You decide.

[_guy sajer]

You don't know what you're talking about.

As of two years ago (when it was reported during a church-wide Priesthood Leadership satellite broadcast that I attended) the Church had given, purely in the form of "Humanitarian Aid" over a billion U.S. dollars in the previous 10 years. This does not include the Fast Offering disbursements worldwide, which amounted to several hundreds of millions of dollars in the same decade.

So, you can criticize the "organization" of the church all you want. It does share many similar aspects with modern multi-national businesses. But to say that the amounts it gives to alleviate the burdens of those who stand in need are "relatively puny" is patently untrue. In fact, when you consider (as often touted on this message board) that there are probably fewer than 3 million "active" Latter-day Saints worldwide, and that this relatively small number of people are responsible for such charitable generosity, I find it very remarkable indeed -- and without parallel in today's world.

How do you know what's 'puny', and what's a lot? What are you comparing this against? What is one billion in relation total church revenues & assets?

General Electric regularly gives over $100 million to charity each year. You can find out how many employees they have, what their revenues and assets are, etc. So you can get a relative picture of how they are doing with their charitable giving.

Not so with the church.

Anyhow, let's look at this $1 billion over 10 years:

That's about $100 million per year. Let's go ultra conservative, and say that there's only 1 million active members (you said 3 million, but I'll give you a big benefit of the doubt).

That works out to $100 per member per year.

Is it 'puny'? You decide.

In determing what is puny or wht is remarkable (or somewhere in-between), keep in mind that we are talking about Jesus Christ's one true representative on earth. The bar, therefore, is higher, I would argue, that what a man-made, man-led, profit-seeking, capitalistic corporation would do.

There's a reason no one asks rhetorically, "What would GE do?"

I think it reasonable to expect that Jesus Christ's heir on earth would be setting the standard for others to follow and not following, and lagging behind, the standard set by others.

[_Who Knows]

Most public companies' charitable donations are around 1% of net income. The UK LDS church is far below that. I'd be interested to know what it is church wide.

Kind of ironic since the church expects their members to give over 10% of their income.

[_harmony]

If total revenue per year, as reported, is anywhere near the $5 billion reported, then over 10 years, that would be $50 billion in donations. Giving $1 billion over 10 years for humanitarian aid is, while worth mentioning, is essentially puny as Guy suggests. 1/50th of the total is simply... puny.

Put it into perspective, William.

[_Infymus]

I would suggest spending some time reading:

http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_money.html

From what I have seen, the LDS Corporation donates less than one half one 1 penny to humanitarian aid.

When you have watched the forums as long as I have, you see that the LDS Corporation also demands that members be prior tithing payers before they are helped. Some families, who have never been baptized, are denied help from even local wards when such things as catastrophic house fires are included.

Mormons who help out in places like hurricane Katrina like to boast about their charity by wearing special t-shirts marking them as Mormons.

It is mostly about Image.

Jesus needs his new food court, and I can't wait for it to open.

[_asbestosman]

Anyhow, let's look at this $1 billion over 10 years:

That's about $100 million per year. Let's go ultra conservative, and say that there's only 1 million active members (you said 3 million, but I'll give you a big benefit of the doubt).

That works out to $100 per member per year.

Is it 'puny'? You decide.

How does it work out when we figure that many members are poor and/or don't live in the US?

If total revenue per year, as reported, is anywhere near the $5 billion reported, then over 10 years, that would be $50 billion in donations. Giving $1 billion over 10 years for humanitarian aid is, while worth mentioning, is essentially puny as Guy suggests. 1/50th of the total is simply... puny.

But shouldn't you take into account the cost of things like electricity, running temples, administration costs, legal fees, etc.? What is the net income of the church over 10 years? Isn't that what it'd take to compare with the charitable donations of GE?

[_Who Knows]

ABman - My point wasn't to figure out what the correct amount per person is. Rather, it was to show that the "$1 billion over 10 years" claim probably isn't as spectacular as it sounds. In fact, we have no way of knowing, as the church won't give us the necessary information to figure that out.

As far as comparing to GE is concerned - yes, it's apples to oranges. However, again, my point was to help put some perspective around the '$1 billion' claim. A better comparison would be donations as a percentage of revenue (since public companies look to maximize net income, whereas charities look to spend all their income).