Maher on Romney's charity to the Mormon Church 4/27/2012

[_EAllusion]

I agree that it is highly misleading to call donations to the LDS Church, and along with many other kinds of religious and secular donations charity.

We associate charity with altruistic giving to improve the station of others. In that argument, that's certain how the person was using the term "charity." But giving to a religion because you want to advance its aims, because you are required to do so to participate in its rites, because you can use it as a tax writeoff, in order to feel good about yourself, etc. has nothing to do with that. It's just too hard to disentangle those motives for giving with using the LDS Church as a means towards humanitarian aide to call any donation to it charity. And if that's why you tithe to them, that's a horrible personal decision because so few of your dollars will go to that end. You would be far better off giving to an organization like the Red Cross. And that's almost certainly not the primary motive of Mitt Romney's donations.

[_EAllusion]

So in Jason's opinion, giving money to a multibillion dollar corporation so it can fund its business ventures in order to do things like buy genetically engineered trout for its malls so you can do things like see your children married, have a massive tax write off, and go to the heaven of heavens is just as charitable of an act as, say, donating books to poor children?

If so, I guess the problem is with Jason's definition of charity. Fortunately, it's of no use for the discussion at hand, because that's not the meaning of "charity" that was used to defend Romney's business practices.

[_Jason Bourne]

So in Jason's opinion, giving money to a multibillion dollar corporation so it can fund its business ventures in order to do things like buy genetically engineered trout for its malls so you can do things like see your children married, have a massive tax write off, and go to the heaven of heavens is just as charitable of an act as, say, donating books to poor children?

If so, I guess the problem is with Jason's definition of charity. Fortunately, it's of no use for the discussion at hand, because that's not the meaning of "charity" that was used to defend Romney's business practices.

Since your comments above are nothing but a straw man and did nothing to address what I said I guess I can ignore you.

If you want to define charity so narrowly then define away. Tithing may not meet that definition.

However I have already noted, if you had bothered to read it, that the LDS church does things that meets the the pure altuistic things that many here think are the only things that qualify as charity.

As to your point as to why LDS person tithe, I know nonce who are motivated by the reason you list. Most actually believe the LDS Church is true, in it mission, utilize its facilities in their worship and are happy to tithe and support it.

[_Jason Bourne]

I agree that it is highly misleading to call donations to the LDS Church, and along with many other kinds of religious and secular donations charity.

We associate charity with altruistic giving to improve the station of others. In that argument, that's certain how the person was using the term "charity." But giving to a religion because you want to advance its aims, because you are required to do so to participate in its rites, because you can use it as a tax writeoff, in order to feel good about yourself, etc. has nothing to do with that. It's just too hard to disentangle those motives for giving with using the LDS Church as a means towards humanitarian aide to call any donation to it charity. And if that's why you tithe to them, that's a horrible personal decision because so few of your dollars will go to that end. You would be far better off giving to an organization like the Red Cross. And that's almost certainly not the primary motive of Mitt Romney's donations.

Pure and utter bunk. How much of a donation to the American Cancer Society goes to feeding the poor. Is its mission not altruistic? I never argued above that all charities or charitable giving is equal. Certainly there are causes that are more noble than others. And certainly it is a point of view. As to why LDS people tithe, or other religious persons support their particular brand I would suggest you really do not know what motivates someone to give I this sense. It is interesting that you inpune the less noble reasons for tithing. Perhaps that is more reflective or your own cynicism and no belief rather than what really motivates the believer.

Further you and others totally dismiss the charitable thing LDS persons may support in other giving to the LDS church that certainly do meet the definition of charity that you and others want to limit charity too. Does not the LDS Church's welfare and humanitarian assistance qualify?

Last of all, I would be happy to compare my humanitarian giving to your or any others on this board. I am sure Mitt Romney would as well. And this is in addition to tithing.

[_EAllusion]

However I have already noted, if you had bothered to read it, that the LDS church does things that meets the the pure altuistic things that many here think are the only things that qualify as charity.

Yeah, but that doesn't not mean donating to them should be considered some ill-advised act of charity where most money is swallowed up in overhead. That tells us nothing of the motives of the person donating to them, and there are many non-charitable motives that are involved in that sort of giving. Ignoring the accuracy of the charge, the argument at hand is that Romney engaged in predatory business practices, but that somehow is forgiven because he's donated a lot to charity. When that "charity" isn't necessarily a sacrifice to help the station of others to offset Romney allegedly hurting people in business, the point is moot.

As to your point as to why LDS person tithe, I know nonce who are motivated by the reason you list.

I'm willing to bet you know lots of people motivated by the reasons I list, though people aren't likely to attribute their actions that way. I donate to NPR. This isn't charitable because I'm donating to help keep NPR on the air and I like what NPR gives me. I also like the idea that NPR-type programming exists and think the country is better off for it, but I'm not so arrogant as to think I'm "helping others" through funding my personal journalistic and artistic preferences There's some, sometimes much, of that in tithing. People like what their Church gives them and want to support its continued existence. I think you are naïve if you don't think that funding one's preferred religious services or making sure one can participate in certain rites doesn't play a role in LDS tithing behavior. To pick another motive implied by my etc., I absolutely have known Mormons who have cited personal blessings and/or being in the good graces of God as a motive to tithe. While their magical thinking isn't grounded in reality, it also isn't really charitable. That's a spiritual business transaction/protection money through and through. Also, I've never known a wealthy person - and granted I've only known a few - who didn't donate to charity as means of reducing tax burden. That they would donate was a given - the only question was where the money would go. That you are shocked - shocked! - that I would describe that as a motive to tithe seems melodramatic to me since it's common knowledge that the wealthy donate for tax purposes.

Pure and utter bunk. How much of a donation to the American Cancer Society goes to feeding the poor.

I didn't say feeding the poor was the only possible charitable act. I defined it as giving to improve the station of others - to help those in need. One would presume that attempting to improve cancer treatment qualifies.

[Guest]

-

[_krose]

This assumes that the only charity Romney donates too is the LDS Church. You and I do not know that nor does anyone else here know that.

Sure we do, at least for 2010, because he released his return for public view. Unfortunately, that's the only year he has released, in contrast to every other recent candidate. He even got an extension for this year's filing, for some strange reason.

He claimed charitable donations of $1.5 million in donations directly to the church, and then another $1.5 million to his own foundation, which gave another $160,000 to the church and to BYU.

Really? So the only thing that is is a Charity is a group the give to the poor? Religion does not qualify as a charity? What silliness.

No, not just the poor, those in need. No, religion is not inherently charitable.

We don't know where all that tithing money goes, do we? Until they show how it's spent, I am free to assume that none of it goes to the needy.

[_EAllusion]

Show me how the criticism is unfair then, you fail to do so in the rest of your response. Most Mormons I know would agree with the above that the LDS Church aren't really there to help the poor, but are concerned with saving people's souls. That is their purpose. Or do you think that the LDS Church's purpose is really to help the poor? If you do then they are extremely inefficient at it. An example of a member of the LDS Church saying exactly the same thing is found here in the comments section:

And remember, if you consider donating to the LDS Church charitable because you are helping save people's souls, then what the argument at the top of the thread is really saying is that Romney engaging in business practices that hurts people financially is Ok because he donates a small % of the proceeds to trying to save their souls via spreading Mormonism. That's so offensive that the person couldn't have possibly meant that. What the commentator was saying was that people harmed financially in column A were offset by some kind of humanitarian aid in column B. That the LDS Church isn't anything resembling an efficient vehicle for that nor is that a likely prominent motive for donating to them matters for the point at hand.

[_Jason Bourne]

True, neither Mother Teresa's outfit or the LDS Church really help the poor, but are concerned with saving people's "souls".

This is utter nonsense. I am all for fair criticism of the LDS Church but I will call you on an unfair one.

Show me how the criticism is unfair then, you fail to do so in the rest of your response. Most Mormons I know would agree with the above that the LDS Church aren't really there to help the poor, but are concerned with saving people's souls.

I think I demonstrated that the Church does quite a bit to help the poor. If you don't think it is enough based on the % of its revenue I can't convince you. I would like to see it do more too. But I pointed out fast offering. I think a reasonable estimate of annual fast offering assistance world wide is in the hundreds of millions. Take $20k per ward and multiply it by 26.000 wards. It is a substantial sum. In addition the Church does give millions annually in humanitarian aid and disaster relief.

Under Monson the Church has added assisting the poor as one it is missions. Sure it is concerned with promoting its religious message as well and clearly it spends more money on saving souls,church operations, temples, missions and son than it does feeding the poor. But it does feed the poor and if you add annual fast offering assistance then the sum is not as small as those critical in this area make it out to be.

That is their purpose. Or do you think that the LDS Church's purpose is really to help the poor? If you do then they are extremely inefficient at it. An example of a member of the LDS Church saying exactly the same thing is found here in the comments section:

If you add fast offering in it is more than 1% but I am not arguing that the Church spends less on the poor than it does other things. I think it should spend more on the poor. That does not mean it really does not help the poor as you suggested.

Sure you can argue that is does not do enough. But to say it does not help the poor is ludicrous.

The LDS Church doesn't do enough? You don't say!! Of course it doesn't do anywhere near enough compared to the amount that it has and the claims it makes to be the representative organization of Yeshua. Nice strawman by the way, but you'll have to show me where in my original post I said that the LDS Church "does not help the poor", I'm looking forward to seeing the quote because I never said it. It's pretty clear that when I was used the word "really" I meant "completely" in the context I wrote it, did you really not understand or are you just being pedantic?

I interpreted your comment of " neither Mother Teresa's outfit or the LDS Church really help the poor" as saying it does nothing for the poor. My intent was not to be pedantic at all. Sorry if I misconstrued your comment.

Have you heard of fast offering? Have you heard of bishops storehouses or the welfare assistance program of the Church?

Yes, I have heard of both and your point is?

The point is both these thing spend substantiation amounts on assisting the poor.

When I was a bishop I gave out about $50,000 a year is food, medical, housing, utilities and other such assistance. And not all of that went to poor LDS members. I think my ward was higher than average. And that exceeded my take in fast offering funds every year for my ward. When I ran a deficit the Church my stake kicked in. If it ran a deficit the Church headquarters kicked in. My guess is that cash came from tithing.

So cut it in half. Say every LDS ward gives out $25,000 a year in welfare assistance. Multiply that by 26,000 wards and you have a substantial annual amount.

Good for you! It sounds like you were an amazing Shepherd to your LDS Flock, I'm sure you sheared and collected a lot of tithing and sent it all off to Salt Lake City where it was used wisely by the Multibillion dollar Corporation of the President.

I don't think I was amazing at all. And sure I collected tithing as well. I wish I knew how it was spent. If you have read what I have posted on this in the past you will know I think the Church needs to be financially transparent. I felt that as a TBM. I feel it even more as a NOM type. It has caused me to reconsider how committed I am to tithing. The mall has pushed me more that way as well.

Yet I am still happy to support fast offering funds and humanitarian aid funds as well because I do see that those funds go to assist those in need.

Sure the LDS Church gives a "substantial amount" compared to any given individual, however compared to the amount they are estimated to take in it is embarrassing how little they actually give.

Does the potentially large amount for fast offering help modify that comment at all for you?

My guess is that cash came from tithing.

My guess would be that it would have come from surplus fast offering funds from other wards which are sent to Salt Lake and then redistributed, that would be my guess. For someone who calls other people out for not backing things up you do a lot of speculating yourself.

Fair enough. We are both speculating about a number of things.

Then there is the disaster aid. Not only does the Church give cash but it gives hundreds of thousands of man hours helping in such disasters. Then the Church has its humanitarian fund. You can argue that it may not be enough based on what it takes in but it is still no small sum.

So the Church pays people man hours helping in disasters? Or are you counting the choice to help out by individual members in disasters as some sort of commodity of the LDS Church? I would wager that the Church of Scientology has given a lot more than the LDS Church in terms of money and hours and I don't consider them a "charity" in this context either.

No it is typically volunteer work my members. But man hours counts and if the Church were not leading the efforts in many disasters the man hours from the Church members may not be there. I have no idea what the Church of Scientology does in such situations.

If those members weren't donating to the LDS Church or participating in LDS Church humanitarian aid activities would they not have given to charity? or spent their time helping people?

Maybe, maybe not.

I'm not LDS anymore and I have spent, since leaving, a lot more time running marathons, engaged in fun activities and raised a lot more personally than I ever did participating in an LDS ward for 20 odd years, not to mention tithing, fast offerings and money donated to useless things like the missionary fund.

I am glad you do so. I have spent a lot of time doing hundred mile bike rides over the past 7 years and have raised over $45k for a cancer organization I believe in. I still give to fast offering, give my time to work on welfare or disaster relief type activities and give money to other worthy causes? I am not sure how your efforts or mine bear on this conversation.

While we are talking about the amounts raised by members at the urging of their stakes we'd better not forget the amazing organizing efforts of the LDS People, in helping to raise money for the Proposition 8 campaign where members helped raise millions. It would be a little disingenous to attribute the funds raised in your example above and to forget the amount raised to defeat equal rights for all people.

And this negates the fact that the LDS Church does have activities that help the poor and needy?

And for the record I was opposed to what the LDS Church did in regards to prop 8.

I don't count that as donating to "charity" either, but no doubt you do.

No doubt you are in error. Just because I defend the Church in this area does not mean I don't take issues with it on other areas. Are you assuming I am a down the line TBM that defends the Church at all costs just because I am arguing in favor of the church on this topic?

Well as for the money being "unaccounted for" I'm using the Oxford dictionary definition of being "unexplained". The fact that you ask how anyone would know shows that the tithing money isn't adequately explained to the membership, in my opinion. The explanations are too vague and it doesn't seem to be going to those places.

I have argued for a long time that the Church should publish its financials. Is this the first time you have read where I stand on such things?

One alleged use of the money is maintenance of buildings, which raises the question of why members are assigned maintenance work in Church buildings without pay? Where did the Church owned businesses and shares come from? and where did the money come from to purchase them? To what extent do Church leaders profit from positions in Church owned businesses?

In the past on this board I have complained about the Church pushing more of its maintenance on the members. It is something I am opposed to.

I can't wait to hear the mental gymnastics involved in explaining it all.

Why the snarky remarks?

I don't claim to know anything in the above, I just simply state that it isn't adequately explained and that it doesn't appear to be going where they claim. I can't say anything else on the matter because of the LDS Church's lack of transparency.

Then we agree on this point.

However we call these things "charities" as they gather and misappropriate the funds donated with no accountability and impunity.

I am all for more transparency by the Church in regards to its income. I am skeptical that there is intentional misappropriation of funds.

It depends on where you draw the line and what you count as "misappropriation". I personally don't see anything wrong with paying good Bishops and Stake Presidents and making it a job

I have argued for this as well.

I think the LDS Church would provide a better service to their members that way. That being said if they are going to refuse to pay them because of needing to have an "unpaid ministry" then it needs to go all the way to the top.

I agree.

"When I worked there, Ensign Peak Advisors was top secret. I heard my superiors mention it and everyone just 'knew' this was something you never talked about. I knew it was very controversial based on the secrecy even on the inside. Indeed many assets were transferred from the Corporation of the President to this other 'company'. At that time Brother Clarke worked in a back office secretly putting this all together for Hinckley. There are many reasons for this new entity. One is to remove these assets from the Church in case of lawsuits. The other is to try to separate from 'tithing' funds so it can be used more flexibly and the Church can defensively say that Church funds weren't used to do this or that.

The First Presidency and 12 Apostles were at that time paid $600K a year and the 70 were paid about $120K. In addition, in the mid-1990s the members of the First Presidency each had unlimited, unaudited charge cards. Hinckley lived in a million dollar condo with servants all provided by Church funds. GA's have significant other benefits like vacation retreats owned by the Church down by St. George and in Oahu, free tuition in Church colleges for their families, world-wide travel pretty much any time they want.

To give you an idea of Church middle management, I earned about $100,000 per year with benefits including pension. I could travel pretty much anywhere world-wide with little justification."

I am not sure how accurate this anecdote is. Personally I have no problem with full time GAs getting paid a decent salary. Open ended credit cards and free tuition for kids at church schools no unless their pay is a lot less than comparable work in the business world.

The oxford dictionary defines charity as follows:

1. an organization set up to provide help and raise money for those in need.

2. the voluntary giving of help, typically in the form of money, to those in need.

Well based on that very narrow definition I have proven above that the LDS Church is a charity and does charitable things.

The "narrow definition" of the Oxford Dictionary, because that is what it is known for extremely narrow definitions, are you deliberately trolling or are you really missing the point? I find it hard to believe that you could actually fail to understand what I put in this paragraph because it's pretty straight forward.

I understand it and no I am not trolling. I simply believe that supporting other worthy causes qualifies as charitable and not simply because tax law allows for such distinction.

You want to know why Bill Maher and a large number of other people take issue with calling Romney's donations to the LDS Church as charity? It's no secret and the above definition spells it out.

I think Maher and his types are looking for anything they can to bash Romney over the head with.

The law on the otherhand defines a lot of things as "charities" as I stated in my comment directly below this. You didn't need to prove the Church as a "charity" because the law already recognizes it as such, but in the normal definition of the word used by ordinary people you have failed to prove it as such, despite the fact that it may do a few charitable things.

I was doing just that. You think I failed. You think millions upon millions, and even annually hundreds of millions of you count fast offering aid, is not enough because it is to small of a percentage of its income. I disagree.

And feel free to tell the single mother/drug addict whose rent I paid for years. or the woman who needed a medical procedure that I used FO funds for because they had no insurance, or the non members whose rents I paid parts of with other Church's in the area who still call me for help even years after I was released, or the many people we gave food to from our local bishops storehouse and the list can go on and on that the LDS Church does not really help the poor because it is just a few charitable things with respect to the total income haul the Church has. For many of these people had we not assisted them they would have been out on the street, without food, with no heat during a very cold winter. But that does not count I guess.

There is no mention of religions or other organizations even if in a legal context they may be defined as "charitable". Romney may believe when he is donating his tithing that he is giving to those in "need", but there isn't any evidence that it is going there and I think it's fair to distinguish between someone giving to the poor which is the way most people understand charity and donating your dues to an estimated multibillion dollar organization religion.

As shown above the LDS Church does substantial activity in assisting the poor. That it may not be enough to you based on what it takes in does not negate the fact that the Church does do charitable activities with income it receives.

We just differ in opinions on this

Apparently.

I don't think the LDS Church's "activity" is substantial in assisting the poor, but you obviously do. The Church may do some charitable activities, but I don't regard the vast majority of the aims and actions of the Church to be "charitable" or even useful in any way and that they can actually be extremely detrimental. In the scheme of things rather than substantial I would describe the majority of their actions as inconsequential.

As noted the hundreds of people I assisted with fast offering funds the 6 years I was bishop would not feel such assistance was insubstantial or detrimental. Not at all.

[_Eric]

I think Jason's anecdotal experience shows that the Mormon Church is about as charitable as the Black Panther Party. I can agree with that.