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

[_ludwigm]

...
If I expect a lot then it's because they make huge claims for themselves.

Thanks,

Hasa Diga Eebowai

And our fever-high expectations don't come true.

[_Analytics]

I have two uncles, both of which are relatively wealthy. They both belong to organizations where they spend a lot of time on Sundays doing rituals, and both of them pay a lot of money to these organizations. Their membership in these organizations is an important part of their self identity.

Both of these organizations are primarily interested in using the money they collect for the benefit of their respective members, but both also give a small percentage of their proceeds to charity.

The question that remains is this: if your religious organization is the Mormon church rather than a golf club, why are the membership fees tax deductible?

[_Buffalo]

I have two uncles, both of which are relatively wealthy. They both belong to organizations where they spend a lot of time on Sundays doing rituals, and both of them pay a lot of money to these organizations. Their membership in these organizations is an important part of their self identity.

Both of these organizations are primarily interested in using the money they collect for the benefit of their respective members, but both also give a small percentage of their proceeds to charity.

The question that remains is this: if your religious organization is the Mormon church rather than a golf club, why are the membership fees tax deductible?

Zing! Great question.

[_Jason Bourne]

Hasa Diga Eebowai"

Your last post is a long post. I think I have pretty much exhausted what I have to offer here but I wanted to make a couple quick comments.

1. That the LDS Church gives money to the poor.
2. We both wish we knew how the Church spends the money donated and there was more accountability to members who donate it whether for Tithing or other funds, and including the money the church takes in, in many cases tax free from businesses.
3. Individual members do a number of things to contribute to help people in need.
4. We both agree that it is good to reach out and help people and have tried to do that.
5. We are both opposed to the Church not paying for maintenance and leaning on members when they clearly have enough to do so, and it is the reason they claim to need tithing money from members.
6. That the money doesn't appear to be going where they claim and there isn't enough accountability.
7. That Stake Presidents and Bishops should be paid for the jobs they do and they would likely provide a better service.
8. That speculation and anecdotal evidence is all we have when discussing a topic like this and the discusssion would be helped by more accurate figures which the LDS Church holds and refuses to disclose.
9. That Maher no doubt is looking for anything to bash Romney with and no doubt is not going to run out of material anytime soon.

After reading everything, I think it is safe to say that that we agree with all of the above. I think some of the areas where we disagree could just be down to misunderstanding.

Yes to all the above. No qualms or complaints from me.

1. I don't think that the Church gives no money to the poor, but I do think compared to what it takes in and what it earns from tithing, property, investments, shares and businesses (which must have come from somewhere to begin with) that what it gives is a very small percentage of that.

2. I think that the predominant work of the LDS Church is focused on promoting its own agenda and not helping the poor.

Approximately 1% of the Money is going to financial aid. That is excluding fast offerings, but it is also excluding income generated from Church owned businesses. When you consider both I would say that the income from those is arguably a lot more than fast offering, but that is just speculation. So I think the 1% is probably the best estimate we have for those reasons.

Ok mostly agree but we will have to disagree on the only 1%. I am a big fan of FO and I think it is substantial. But we cannot tell since there are no records to review for us.

3. I don't view the LDS agenda that they seek to promote as being essential or beneficial and that infact they are pushing a flawed product that in many ways appears to be detrimental to a large number of people.

4. That in terms of the billions of people in the world that their efforts in pushing their agenda are largely inconsequential and the small fraction of their income and money that they spend on helping the poor is also.

Perhaps but not inconsequential to those who receive it. Even if the Church gave 100% of its income to pure charity it would still be inconsequential to the world as a whole.

I've laid out my position above and you are free not to agree with it, but without the LDS Church disclosing how much they actually spend and how much they have over the years that is all we have to go on. You may choose to reject the argument or to weigh the evidence available in a different way and that is your choice, but to label everyone who doesn't hold your view as being "unfair" or as talking "utter nonsense" seems to be unfair in itself.

Ok

I will agree my words were a bit strong.

When talking about mental gymnastics I wasn't trying to be snarky, but there does seem to be an amount of it going on with your explanations of what constitutes charity. You seem to be willing to attribute "charity" for the LDS Church for it following its agenda when you say:

I simply believe that supporting other worthy causes qualifies as charitable and not simply because tax law allows for such distinction.

Yet when it comes to Prop 8, a proposition seeking to further the LDS Church's agenda and the Church soliciting funds for it you reject that as charity despite it being an example of the LDS Church raising money to further its purposes into not-for-profit organizations. The LDS Church actually spent money promoting it and continues to express the same sentiments. So are you saying that the LDS Church is a worthy cause and therefore qualifies as charitable? If you aren't then you seem to agree that donating to the LDS Church isn't necessarily charitable, but if you are then to exclude Prop 8 when it is an example of promoting the LDS agenda would require a certain amount of mental gymnastics, would it not?

Here are my thoughts on this. I may give to the United Way but I may not agree with everything the United Way does, and O don't by the way. Same with the Red Cross. But I still give. I am a strong supporter of the Lance Armstrong Foundation. Again, there are a few things I think they could do better but over all I can still support them. So I would disagree that it takes mental gymnastics to support much of what the LDS Church does and be opposed to other parts.

But I will confess the use of funds for Prop 8 (which activity in my view could have flown foul of IRC Section 501(c)(3)) as well as this new mall have given me pause about how and what I really want to do with my funds that go to the LDS Church.

So if Monson has changed it to be one of the four purposes of the LDS Church, when will the 1/4 of the revenue be given to it? Or is it just a PR move to give himself some phony legacy to be remembered for because as a "prophet" who receives no revelations he needs something.

Time will tell.