LDS Missionaries among the Homeless?

[Guest]

Here's what you've led me to conclude so far: you misunderstood the scope of LDS charitable giving (and you're not afraid to flagrantly ignore it), you refuse to establish any kind of grounds for your presumed moral superiority, and you refuse to take 10 seconds to establish a mechanism that affords you the opportunity to donate food and money for free every single day. You're no philanthropist or philosopher, and you obviously don't genuinely care about the poor. You're just an angry person looking to feel better by denigrating a faith tradition and its adherents. Bravo.

Here's what you've led me to believe.
You don't know the financial facts as well as I do.
(sorry, couldn't resist )

Here's what we know:
The Church over 26 years has spent $1.4 billion on humanitarian aid - this figure is made up of cash given, materials given and a "cost" estimate for time donations.
The Church has spent upwards of $1.5 billion on a single Shopping and Residential complex in downtown Salt Lake City.
This are the facts.

You claim (and I'm willing to acknowledge) that the Church actually expends more donations on helping the poor and the needy than gets published on the provident living website. That may, or may not be the case as we only have anecdotal information and certainly no hard numbers. It may also be true that the Church expends a lot of money on non faith promoting (some would argue non Christ aligned) items such as stipends, leader accommodations etc etc as well as other "for profit" items. It's difficult to add all of these things into the debate because the Church steadfastly refuses to "show us the money".

I tell you what mak.
Over the next month or two, the church is due to publish it's financial data in countries where it is legally obliged to do so.
When it does, let's you and I have a look at the numbers and discuss them and see what it tells us about the fiscal priorities of the Church.

In terms of Missionary numbers - how many spend the majority of their time practically helping the homeless and hungry and how many spend the majority of the time trying to recruit new income streams (sorry, meant converts. must be my angry bitter streak kicking in)?

[_maklelan]

Right back at ya.....

I've not done that at all. Obviously you're going to try to argue that my question about your own charitable giving is evasive, but you'll notice that I responded to all your concerns that were on-topic in addition to asking that question. I've evaded nothing. The question is also directly relevant to the thread. If you want to glare down your snout at the Church for not being charitable enough for you, you better be willing to show that you are charitable at all. So far you've shown you refuse to expend any energy at all to be charitable, and you refuse to be open about it. Why the closed books, so to speak?

[_Bazooka]

If you want to glare down your snout at the Church for not being charitable enough for you, you better be willing to show that you are charitable at all. So far you've shown you refuse to expend any energy at all to be charitable, and you refuse to be open about it. Why the closed books, so to speak?

My books aren't closed, to the people that have contributed to them.
I have contributed to the Church coffers, so the books should be open, to me and other tithe payers at least.

[_subgenius]

...(snip)...I have contributed to the Church coffers...(snip)...

Prove it.
CFR

[Guest]

Here's what you've led me to believe.
You don't know the financial facts as well as I do.

No, you don't believe that at all. Don't lie just to try to make a rhetorical point.

Here's what we know:
The Church over 26 years has spent $1.4 billion on humanitarian aid - this figure is made up of cash given, materials given and a "cost" estimate for time donations.
The Church has spent upwards of $1.5 billion on a single Shopping an Residential complex in downtown Salt Lake City.
This are the facts.

You've left out the fact that the first number is only limited to the very specific category of "humanitarian aid." It does not include domestic and international welfare, which is what goes directly to the poor. If you know anything at all about the church's finances, you know that number is quite significant. You also know the mall provided thousands of jobs, is currently producing more of a return than anticipated, and is doing wonders for the city's economy. The church is allowed to contribute to more than one portion of society.

You claim (and I'm willing to acknowledge) that the Church actually expends more donations on helping the poor and the needy than gets published on the provident living website. That may, or may not be the case as we only have anecdotal information and certainly no hard numbers.

It could only "not be the case" if the church's total contributions to domestic and international welfare was $0.00. Is this your contention, or was your "may or may not be the case" more of a reflexive rhetorical ejaculation just meant to obliquely acknowledge the fact that you were wrong without admitting it openly?

t may also be true that the Church expends a lot of money on non faith promoting (some would argue non Christ aligned) items such as stipends, leader accommodations etc etc as well as other "for profit" items. It's difficult to add all of these things into the debate because the Church steadfastly refuses to "show us the money".

Yet you're still more than willing to pass judgment based only on what has been shown (coupled with your own uninformed assumptions).

I tell you what mak.
Over the next month or two, the church is due to publish it's financial data in countries where it is legally obliged to do so.
When it does, let's you and I have a look at the numbers and discuss them and see what it tells us about the fiscal priorities of the Church.

Why wait? Here's Great Britain's publication of the Church's 2011 income and expenditures. Not terribly detailed, but perhaps you can find fault with it anyway.

In terms of Missionary numbers - how many spend the majority of their time practically helping the homeless and hungry and how many spend the majority of the time trying to recruit new income streams (sorry, meant converts. must be my angry bitter streak kicking in)?

They are increasing the amount of time they spend in non-proselytizing service, and I encourage more of the same. I can tell you that the Quorum of the Twelve has recently stated internally that they would like to reduce spending in some areas so they can increase the money they spend on helping the poor. Certainly there has to be something cynical and angry you can extrapolate from that. Most likely they're just lying, right?

[_maklelan]

My books aren't closed, to the people that have contributed to them.
I have contributed to the Church coffers, so the books should be open, to me and other tithe payers at least.

And yet you openly refuse to take ten seconds and make a charitable website your homepage so you can contribute to multiple charities every day absolutely free of charge, and on the completely disingenuous--and demonstrably false--grounds that Wikipedia claims it's a for-profit organization. Oh, you're an example for us all.

[_Bazooka]

Here's what we know:
The Church over 26 years has spent $1.4 billion on humanitarian aid - this figure is made up of cash given, materials given and a "cost" estimate for time donations.
The Church has spent upwards of $1.5 billion on a single Shopping an Residential complex in downtown Salt Lake City.
This are the facts.

You've left out the fact that the first number is only limited to the very specific category of "humanitarian aid."

How did I leave out that fact?

It does not include domestic and international welfare, which is what goes directly to the poor. If you know anything at all about the church's finances, you know that number is quite significant. You also know the mall provided thousands of jobs, is currently producing more of a return than anticipated, and is doing wonders for the city's economy. The church is allowed to contribute to more than one portion of society.

Can you show where else (other than outside the Prophets window) in the world the Church has used it's $billions of funds to stimulate the economy?

You claim (and I'm willing to acknowledge) that the Church actually expends more donations on helping the poor and the needy than gets published on the provident living website. That may, or may not be the case as we only have anecdotal information and certainly no hard numbers.

It could only "not be the case" if the church's total contributions to domestic and international welfare was $0.00. Is this your contention, or was your "may or may not be the case" more of a reflexive rhetorical ejaculation just meant to obliquely acknowledge the fact that you were wrong without admitting it openly?

No, my contention is we don't know.

t may also be true that the Church expends a lot of money on non faith promoting (some would argue non Christ aligned) items such as stipends, leader accommodations etc etc as well as other "for profit" items. It's difficult to add all of these things into the debate because the Church steadfastly refuses to "show us the money".

Yet you're still more than willing to pass judgment based only on what has been shown (coupled with your own uninformed assumptions).

What judgements have I made? Other than the one about the Church spending more on City Creek than it has on 26 years worth of humanitarian aid - which is a fact.

I tell you what mak.
Over the next month or two, the church is due to publish it's financial data in countries where it is legally obliged to do so.
When it does, let's you and I have a look at the numbers and discuss them and see what it tells us about the fiscal priorities of the Church.

Why wait? Here's Great Britain's publication of the Church's 2011 income and expenditures.Not terribly detailed, but perhaps you can find fault with it anyway.

I got circulated the detailed version of these last year. 2012's are due out in August so let's wait till then.

In terms of Missionary numbers - how many spend the majority of their time practically helping the homeless and hungry and how many spend the majority of the time trying to recruit new income streams (sorry, meant converts. must be my angry bitter streak kicking in)?

They are increasing the amount of time they spend in non-proselytizing service, and I encourage more of the same. I can tell you that the Quorum of the Twelve has recently stated internally that they would like to reduce spending in some areas so they can increase the money they spend on helping the poor. Certainly there has to be something cynical and angry you can extrapolate from that. Most likely they're just lying, right?

Looks like you're going to be cleaning the COB toilets soon....

As I understand it, the Missionary drive is to spend more time on the internet and sat in Chapels.

[_maklelan]

How did I leave out that fact?

You've assumed "humanitarian aid" meant all charitable giving.

Can you show where else (other than outside the Prophets window) in the world the Church has used it's $billions of funds to stimulate the economy?

How is that relevant?

No, my contention is we don't know.

So "may or may not be" is wrong. It definitely is true that the church spends more than just the humanitarian aid, we just don't know the exact number. Is this accurate, or would you like to equivocate further?

What judgements have I made?

That the Church is being less ethical than you.

Other than the one about the Church spending more on City Creek than it has on 26 years worth of humanitarian aid - which is a fact.

Again, you know "humanitarian aid" is a technical term in the Church's expenditures, but are counting on the majority of the readers interpreting it as a generic reference to all charitable giving. The fact is, you don't know whether or not the Church has spent more on the poor than on City Creek. You're happy to use rhetoric and deception to make it seem like you know, though.

I got circulated the detailed version of these last year. 2012's are due out in August so let's wait till then.

Nothing to say about 2011?

Looks like you're going to be cleaning the COB toilets soon....

Is that so?

As I understand it, the Missionary drive is to spend more time on the internet and sat in Chapels.

And it's a good thing what you understand has no bearing on anything.

[_subgenius]

...(snip)...I have contributed to the Church coffers...(snip)...

Prove it.
CFR

Bump for Zooka

[_Bazooka]

How did I leave out that fact?

You've assumed "humanitarian aid" meant all charitable giving.

I don't think so.

Can you show where else (other than outside the Prophets window) in the world the Church has used it's $billions of funds to stimulate the economy?

How is that relevant?

No, my contention is we don't know.

It definitely is true that the church spends more than just the humanitarian aid, we just don't know the exact number.

I agree.

What judgements have I made?

That the Church is being less ethical than you.

It is, it fails to live up to the standards it declares are important. The Church tells members to give generously to charity whereas 'it' spends the equivalent of 26 years worth of humanitarian aid on a shopping mall that the leaders profess to not anticipate a gain from, aside from making downtown Salt Lake City a bit prettier. How much, in comparison, has the Church spent on helping the homeless of Salt Lake City - Less/A lot less/massively less/so much less it's embarrassing to Christ?

Other than the one about the Church spending more on City Creek than it has on 26 years worth of humanitarian aid - which is a fact.

Again, you know "humanitarian aid" is a technical term in the Church's expenditures, but are counting on the majority of the readers interpreting it as a generic reference to all charitable giving. The fact is, you don't know whether or not the Church has spent more on the poor than on City Creek.

Feel free to supply more figures so that we can form a stronger opinion then.

I got circulated the detailed version of these last year. 2012's are due out in August so let's wait till then.

Nothing to say about 2011?

Lots, search the archives and you'll find it all. Or perhaps you could do the math yourself. According to those figures, how much was spent on each of the following:
1. Helping the poor and the needy = ?
2. Everything else = ?

Looks like you're going to be cleaning the COB toilets soon....

Is that so?

Well, if the pattern is consistent, when the Apostles intimate that cost cutting is going to be necessary it usually means people like yourself either lose their job entirely or that members have to take up the slack on an unpaid basis by doing jobs that were previously salaried. Such as cleaning the Chapel toilets.

As I understand it, the Missionary drive is to spend more time on the internet and sat in Chapels.

And it's a good thing what you understand has no bearing on anything.

How do you know that what I understand has no bearing on anything?
One could argue that the Apostles intimation that they wish to cut costs so that they can spend more money on helping the homeless is as a direct result of people holding their activities up to the light and posting on message boards that the Church has spent 26 years worth of humanitarian aid on an upmarket shopping centre in downtown Salt Lake City. Somebody is forcing them to change, maybe Christ is unhappy with how His Church is being run.

Do you think Jesus is pleased with His Church developing City Creek?
If Jesus was living on earth today, do you think He would have spent $1.4 billion on an upmarket shopping mall?