How the Mormons Make Money | BusinessWeek.com

[_just me]

Every ward had an "employment specialist" (I'm talking about when I was a bishop; I can't speak for now), who was specifically assigned to help unemployed, or under-employed members find work, and where possible helping members develop skills to obtain better employment. Of course it was necessary to call someone to this position who had the requisite knowledge and skills, and that wasn't always possible in a small ward as mine, but in theory, in larger wards with a greater pool of resources to choose from, it should work in practice very well.

The calling of Employment Specialist still exists. My husband was the Employment Specialist for our ward when we lived in Utah. I have served as the Employment Specialist in our NC ward.

I believe they also have a new website based program for helping people network for jobs or something. I went to a leadership training about it about 3 years ago.

[_zeezrom]

I think what he's really trying to say is that when people are suffering temporally and struggling to provide the most basic necessities of life, it is much harder for them to blossom spiritually.

I always felt this is the reason GAs are well off financially.

[_Jason Bourne]

So (outside of Fast Offering) the church has done little humanitarian aid comparatively to its overall income. But the real value is on the thousands of hours of service? Well did THE CHURCH really do the service? Nope. The members did and could do service without the church. Granted the church does encourage service but it does not do it. And how many of the hundreds of thousands of hours of service was serving in callings for the Church?

[The members are "the Church". Aid is temporary, and could go on forever and a day without any lasting internal improvements being made by motivating people to plan and structure their own destiny.

Mormons in Africa: A Bright Land of Hope.

Church Aids in Eastern African Famine.

I understand the members are the Church and I have argued here the Church does lots of good and does do aid and I constantly note that everyone forget fast offering assistance which has to be in the hundreds of millions. Still I have a problem with a spokesperson for the Church, when challanged on the very small amount given for humanitarian aid as compared to the assets the Church has, say that the real giving is the hours the members serve.

[_Jason Bourne]

Of course, having said that, I do think a better program for the church to employ would be to help people who are deeply impoverished and struggling financially to get them back on their feet: education, job training, direct cash assistance for food and mortgage and utilities, etc. Not building a shopping mall. The quote from McMullin is not terrible per se, but in the context of the article, it makes him look like an ass, to be sure. There just is no connection between this extravagant mall and condos and helping people who are temporally impoverished.

The Church Welfare Program was in place when I was a bishop (1980-1983), and it's still going, and perhaps even stronger. It's one of the most detailed welfare programs in existence (I believe US government officials looked into it and possibly adopting it, but I'd have to find the quote).

LDS Family Services is also another part of the Welfare Program. Although LDS Family Services is a separate corporation, bishops (who oversee local welfare needs and distribution) refer members of the Church who are in need of its help. LDS Family Services provide adoption services, counseling for unwed parents, placing children in foster homes, and therapy and counseling for families or individuals experiencing other problems.

Another part of the welfare program is the Bishop’s Storehouse. The Bishop’s Storehouse is a place where goods are kept to be distributed to those in need. It is filled with food and other household items such as soap, food, and clothing, some of which are produced by the Church. When a family or individual is going through a hard time, they can go to their bishop and he will help them decide what they need.

The Church also provides employment programs. The Church has set up centers around the world where people can go and get help finding a job or learning marketable skills. The Church also runs a program known as the Perpetual Education Fund. Through this program, people can apply for aid from the Church to pay for their schooling. After they have completed their education they are asked to return the money they used so that others will be helped. Anyone can donate to this fund as well.

(Emphasis added)

Church Welfare Program.

Every ward had an "employment specialist" (I'm talking about when I was a bishop; I can't speak for now), who was specifically assigned to help unemployed, or under-employed members find work, and where possible helping members develop skills to obtain better employment. Of course it was necessary to call someone to this position who had the requisite knowledge and skills, and that wasn't always possible in a small ward as mine, but in theory, in larger wards with a greater pool of resources to choose from, it should work in practice very well.

Every bishop was expected to fully read and understand the Welfare Services Handbook, and they were provided with regular stake training. Many people misunderstand the role of a bishop, whose two major responsibilities are 1) The Aaronic Priesthood (he's the President of the AP), and 2) The temporal welfare of ward members. As a bishop, he is also the "presiding high priest" over the ward, but those responsibilities are mainly delegated through the Melchizedek priesthood quorums, such as home teaching, etc.

All this is still in place. Employment specialists, regional employment centers, some stake centers, bishop storehouses, FO assistance. Much of my time as a bishop was spent working with those in financial need. Provided aid, plugged into other resources, looked to help improve employment and so on.

[_Tim the Enchanter]

The Church Welfare Program was in place when I was a bishop (1980-1983), and it's still going, and perhaps even stronger. It's one of the most detailed welfare programs in existence (I believe US government officials looked into it and possibly adopting it, but I'd have to find the quote).

When you were bishop, was it the policy to assist families with welfare after they had sought help from their family and the government first? When I was growing up, I had been taught that people should go to their family for help first before the church (which I think makes sense in most cases), but I had not heard up until recently* that the church now expects people to go to the government for welfare before the church will help. Has anyone else heard this?

*last week from a newly called bishop

[_RayAgostini]

Still I have a problem with a spokesperson for the Church, when challanged on the very small amount given for humanitarian aid as compared to the assets the Church has, say that the real giving is the hours the members serve.

Maybe they haven't forgotten that they were once in very serious debt, until Lorenzo Snow, who decided to con the members into paying tithing (that last bit was for critic consumption [not you], or maybe, "convulsion"?).

Have you looked into Yeah Samake at all? He's a very interesting example of how members are working at the "grass roots" to improve conditions in Africa.

[_RayAgostini]

When you were bishop, was it the policy to assist families with welfare after they had sought help from their family and the government first? When I was growing up, I had been taught that people should go to their family for help first before the church (which I think makes sense in most cases), but I had not heard up until recently* that the church now expects people to go to the government for welfare before the church will help. Has anyone else heard this?

*last week from a newly called bishop

That was the case when I was a bishop. First, family help if available, then second, government help if possible, third, Church help if necessary. I was somewhat guarded against requests because I believed that some, not all, members were resorting to the Church first. What if, hypothetically, a member had a rich relative (I'm speaking hypothetically), whom they never asked for help, and who might have willingly given it had they asked, but never understood the plight of this relative? I didn't do this to "save money" for the Church, but to make people less inclined to believe that the Church would jump to pay their electricity bills when they had not done enough themselves. Admittedly, I'm a conservative voter, and dislike bludgers, because I've worked hard all my life, and never asked anyone for assistance, and my basic philosophy is, "you don't work, then you don't eat".

There were instances, as in the case of elderly widows, where I bypassed any questions, and signed a check for their bills. They had given years of service to the Church, and I had no problem assisting them, no questions asked.

[_Drifting]

Quote from the current Handbook given to Bishops.

Church members are responsible for their own spiritual and temporal well-being. Blessed with the gift of agency, they have the privilege and duty to set their own course, solve their own problems, and strive to become self-reliant. Members do this under the inspiration of the Lord and with the labor of their own hands.

When Church members are doing all they can to provide for themselves but cannot meet their basic needs, generally they should first turn to their families for help. When this is not sufficient or feasible, the Church stands ready to help.

So when McMullin says that the Church caters for ALL the members needs one wonders what planet he is on...Kolob perhaps...

I actually don't think people are critical of the Church's welfare and aid programmes, quite the opposite. I think the problem is the disparity between the finances put towards a single, loss making commercial enterprise in one city in Utah for the local shopping and employment needs of Salt Lake residents ($5 billion) and the finances put towards helping the poor and the needy around the world (a proportion of the $1.3 billion estimate) over the course of a quarter of a century.

[_Sophocles]

I am very critical of the whole mall thing, and have no problem pouncing on a stupid statement from a church leader for s***s and giggles, but in this case, I think what he's really trying to say is that when people are suffering temporally and struggling to provide the most basic necessities of life, it is much harder for them to blossom spiritually. When they are wondering where their next meal is coming from or if the landlord is going to kick them out this month, it's hard for them to think about anything "spiritual." If that's what he is saying, I can sort of agree. Of course, having said that, I do think a better program for the church to employ would be to help people who are deeply impoverished and struggling financially to get them back on their feet: education, job training, direct cash assistance for food and mortgage and utilities, etc. Not building a shopping mall. The quote from McMullin is not terrible per se, but in the context of the article, it makes him look like an ass, to be sure. There just is no connection between this extravagant mall and condos and helping people who are temporally impoverished.

I also got that he was going for something like Maslow's hierarchy, but it this context it's just a transparent excuse to justify a commercial venture.

If the church cared about creating jobs, why did it fire all the janitors?

If the mall is such a noble cause, why is the church so keen to deny that it was funded from tithes? If it were a hospital or even a school or a library, they'd be proud that tithes had paid for it.

If you think about it, every time they deny that mall was built with tithing, they are basically acknowledging that this whole business is unbecoming of a religious organization.

[_Rufus]

I guess I'm behind the times, but I didn't know they used senior missionaries to support the for profit ventures of the church.

They use other missionaries for "Real Estate" missions. A person with such experience expresses interest in serving a mission. They are called from 6 months to 2 years to work for the church and assist the church in identifying and purchasing properties throughout the world.

I have personal experience with this 'opportunity'