New wording: “Though reasonable efforts will be made globally to use donations as designated, all donations become the Church’s property and will be used at the Church’s sole discretion to further the Church’s overall mission.”
This is a startling revelation, thank you for bringing it to our attention brother Antley. For years I had trouble understanding why the Church increased its standards for mission attendance. When the costs of missions are fully paid by either the family and/or the Church through donations, what does it matter if missionaries go out who aren't going to convert anybody or who weren't fully worthy? Missions generally convert the missionary, or at least integrate the missionary into LDS tithe-paying adulthood that will soon lock him into a TBM marriage and a life of forced activity, so there is just no upside to turning a mission down if the means to pay exists.
But what if...indeed, what if there were a surplus in operational funds for things like missions? Well, if there's a surplus, and forecasts for the future don't suggest a need any time soon for the money, then why not use the money in an area where there is a shortage, such as for increasing construction costs at City Creek? If I donated ten dollars specifically to feed the hungry, but the hungry were filled after 8 dollars were spent, I suppose if the remaining two dollars were spent on clothing I couldn't complain. Given the Church's knowledge that the world market for LDS theology has matured and the ROI on missionary work is terrible, it would be beneficial to have an even greater surplus in operational funds so that the surplus could be funneled into City Creek where the ROI was expected to be much higher. How do you maximize a budget surplus? tighten down the screws. Every member a janitor, and only the most worthy should go on a mission. Reduce costs, but by all means, toe the line of "be generous in your tithes and offerings" as if budgets are fully being spent, which they are, technically. Of course, in the charity example I gave, if money continued to be spent on clothing or school for the needy, the charity would probably own up and declare the problem of hunger solved, but ask for continued help in these other areas. So why doesn't the Church just own up and declare that they have enough money for missions, building maintenance etc., and ask for donations specifically for the areas they are hurting, such as for building their real estate empire?
Well I think that's obvious. That's why for years they did this without saying anything. Members believe it's important to build temples, keep churches beautiful, send young men on missions, and have crates of BoMs on hand. They have not yet been brainwashed into believing City Creek needs to be built by their tithing. But one thing I'll give the Church credit for, they likely aren't Enron in the sense that they take excessive legal risks, so at a certain point, they may have realized they needed to fully disclose the new plan.
So, Joseph, you might have to pay for City Creek with your donations but the silver lining is that now you can shop there for goods and services at premium prices.
