Circular missionary/fast offering financing

[pistolero]

I'm currently spending time in a low-middle income country with high levels of poverty and have noticed something that feels questionable. In the ward, local members (about 100 people) are told they have an "obligation" to feed the eight missionaries daily. When I expressed concern that some members lack financial resources to fulfill this obligation, the Bishop explained that they provide Fast Offering funds (a set amount of approximately $6 per missionary) to poorer families specifically to purchase food for the missionaries (who are predominantly from the US). Most and sometimes more of the monthly fast offering income donated per month is actually spent on this - approx $250. The fast offering is effectively the missionary program?

This creates what seems like a circular system: money designated to help the poor is being redirected to support missionary work that should already be self-financed through the missionaries' pre-saved funds. On one hand, some poorer families are receiving Fast Offering money and potentially making a small profit from feeding missionaries. On the other hand, these US missionaries and their families have already budgeted and paid for their missions, including food expenses. I'm struggling to reconcile these perspectives. Is it appropriate to use charitable donations meant for poverty relief to fund an institutional program, or does this represent a misalignment between the stated purpose of Fast Offerings and their actual use?

This feels extremely scandalous to me, but my scandal-dar is all over the place lately, or is this just typical of TSCC and I should just get on with it?

The Bishop claimed mitigating circumstances for this situation, that none of the local missionaries pay much towards their own missions and they don't have a missionary fund...

[Marcus]

How many days, and meals per day, is the $6 per missionary supposed to cover?

I would ask why they don't just give the money directly to the missionaries, but it seems clear that that would obviously violate their own fast offerings rule of using money for people in their congregation, so they have to hide it. Do members have to buy, prepare, and serve the food to the missionaries also?

[I Have Questions]

To be fair the LDS Church is not a wealthy church and cannot afford to properly fund its missionary programme. Plus they don’t want to deprive the members of the blessings that come from having missionaries in their home.

How’d I do?

[Marcus]

To be fair the LDS Church is not a wealthy church and cannot afford to properly fund its missionary programme. Plus they don’t want to deprive the members of the blessings that come from having missionaries in their home.

How’d I do?

Excellent. I cannot forget the apostle who told the president of an African country, who was asking for help with water for his citizens,
"we are not a wealthy people..."

[I Have Questions]

To be fair the LDS Church is not a wealthy church and cannot afford to properly fund its missionary programme. Plus they don’t want to deprive the members of the blessings that come from having missionaries in their home.

How’d I do?

Excellent. I cannot forget the apostle who told the president of an African country, who was asking for help with water for his citizens,
"we are not a wealthy people..."

“We want to help in every way we can,” said Elder Andersen. “We are not a wealthy people but we are good people, and we share what we have,”

https://news-zw.churchofjesuschrist.org ... es-support

At the time he said that, the Church was sat on $billions of dollars in secret, and which they were going to great fraudulent lengths to avoid reporting them.

At the point he said it the Church was exceptionally wealthy and worked very hard to share very very very little of what they had.

In terms of Anderson, at the time he was unaware of the eye watering funds the church was holding. It was kept secret from all the Apostles except the First Presidency. A man with integrity would have resigned on the back of finding out.

[sock puppet]

This does not surprise me. The Mormon church has been shifty since its inception. It should be called The Church of Dodgy Loopholes for the Latter-day Saints.

[pistolero]

Thanks for your replies, everyone.

I appreciate the feedback, though I admit I was expecting the typical "shoulder shrug" responses about how the church just operates this way. I'm someone who rarely gets involved in activism, and my relationship with the church remains... complicated. While I'm seldom aligned with the institution these days, I do try to stand up for what's right when I see it.

This situation feels particularly problematic because it's literally taking money designated for the poor and redirecting it to subsidize a program that should be independently funded. The irony is that some impoverished members may benefit slightly by receiving these funds, but the overall system seems deceptive - especially when the church has such vast financial resources as mentioned in your comments. If this happened in the US, there would surely be waves made.

My question now is: should I actually try to do something about this or just let it slide? I could write a letter to a national newspaper, contact a politician familiar with charitable oversight, or see if someone like John Dehlin might be interested in raising the profile of this arrangement. I'm not sure what would be most effective, but I feel compelled to pursue it in some way.

Or is this just another example of something we get to grumble about but ultimately accept as "the way things are with TSCC"? I'm genuinely torn between making waves over a principle I believe in versus the reality that changing entrenched institutional practices is an uphill battle.

[drumdude]

In my ward there was a signup sheet for everyone to volunteer evenings to feed the missionaries. It was entirely optional.

I would have found that bishop’s request completely unacceptable.

[pistolero]

In my ward there was a signup sheet for everyone to volunteer evenings to feed the missionaries. It was entirely optional.

I would have found that bishop’s request completely unacceptable.

This is what I’m used to also.

I should stress that this seems like a mission-wide policy, not just my new ward. Bishop, who seems a reasonable, affable character didn’t appear keen to defend the set up when I queried it - it sounds like it can be stressful filling all the days of the month for 8 missionaries.

[Moksha]

Do missionaries ever get the feeling that being there is making life harder for everyone?