Studies Show Bible Belt States Are Most Charitable

Originally Posted by Katzpur

You are clearly clueless. For a church that constitutes just 1/5 of 1% of the world's population, the LDS Church gives enormous amounts every year in humanitarian aid all over the world. I can give you stats if you want, but for now I'll just say that you flat out don't know what you're talking about. Mormons take care of their own (which results in less of a strain on governments to take care of us) and then we go out and take care of people on the other side of the world who likely will never even know where the food, clothing, medical supplies, etc. they received came from.

I'd be willing to bet that my personal contributions as a Mormon to LDS-sponsored charities that are used solely to help those in need throughout the world exceed what you give to any charity.

This is not about if the contribution put less of a strain on governments to take care of others. It is about what constitutes 'charity' and that being used as a measure to conclude the title of this thread. Giving to your own church to take care of yourself should not be considered charity.

I know directly that the money given to churches, of all sorts, does not go to things that constitute charity - like paying for that plane or the pastor salary, or events that stroke the religious mind with propaganda about their own beliefs, or mission work for spreading the 'truth.' When the IRS gets these figures from the 501c3 organizations these details are lost.

My girlfriend is an ex Mormon and whether or not there is some stated 'rule' she was always pressured explicitly or implicitly to give if you want to be a 'good' Mormon. To suggest that this kind of psychological manipulation is not real and part of the motive behind such 'charity' is asinine. I hear this from a lot of religious people not just Mormons.

[mordant]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

I know directly that the money given to churches, of all sorts, does not go to things that constitute charity ...

Not entirely to charity, usually not much to charity, often not at all to charity. Aside from the obvious issue that small rural and suburban churches often struggle to pay basic expenses, and have little enough to give even to missions, much less to community outreach ... there are a lot of really odd things going on even in better-heeled churches.

For example, I know a thing or two about pipe organs and what a sinkhole of $$ they are to build and maintain, particularly when it gets played for 15 minutes once a week. A large Presbyterian congregation in this small city has a 4 manual, 100 rank instrument that would do credit to a large parish someplace like New York City. It cost millions, I assure you; it's a custom job by a small builder. It is only a decade old; it replaced a less costly and prestigious factory-built instrument that was only a couple of decades old (basically brand new in pipe organ terms) and I can only imagine the rationalizations that went into that unnecessary expenditure, which was basically about bragging rights. Meanwhile a much smaller church nearer my home, which I doubt has more than 200 members, is installing a much smaller, 2 manual / 15 rank custom instrument of early 19th century French design right down to the old fashioned and expensive to maintain tracker action, which will set them back a million bucks easily just to get it up and running. This is all particularly galling when I know that for a tenth of the price they could get a quality digital instrument, the sound of which would fool an expert if it's property specified and voiced -- and which has near-zero maintenance cost and would provide an order of magnitude more flexibility and resources.

This is just one example of the "charity" to which church budgets go.

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

My girlfriend is an ex Mormon and whether or not there is some stated 'rule' she was always pressured explicitly or implicitly to give if you want to be a 'good' Mormon. To suggest that this kind of psychological manipulation is not real and part of the motive behind such 'charity' is asinine. I hear this from a lot of religious people not just Mormons.

I can testify that this was the manipulative situation in my church when I was a believer. I think that many in that church would say, just as Katzpur does, that no one holds a gun to their head. Others would say there are unwritten expectations all over the place concerning it. They made much of the verse that says you shouldn't give out of compulsion "because god loves a cheerful giver". The point was to give voluntarily, but the implications was "you vill give, und you vill ENJOY". There's something wrong with you if you're not a "cheerful giver".

In a small church, someone has to track donations and issue receipts for tax purposes, and that someone is the treasurer who is an officer under the direction of the board, which the pastor presides over. So at the top level everyone can find out who's giving and who's not, and how much. That's implicit pressure.

How heavily this weighs on people varies according to the style of the church leadership, the personality of the giver and their vulnerability to guilting strategems, the size of the church, etc. But I think it's safe to say that most churches that lack wealthy endowments struggle financially and hit their dwindling membership up frequently, out of necessity, even if they aren't greedy. Most of them resort at times to requesting that people "give until it hurts" and suggest that god will make it up to them* and bless them for their generosity, etc. These were all very common memes.

In my personal experience I did not see much actual, intentional, cold-hearted manipulation going on. Members have a role to play too ... they join the church voluntarily and can leave, give or not give, etc. When there WAS exploitation going on, there were telltale signs, such as the pastor of a church of perhaps 150 members driving an expensive sports car and his wife blinged out, say. Smart people don't join such a church, in my view. However ... even when all the actors mean well, it is a situation just about begging to be taken advantage of: people submitting to god-constituted authority cannot take disappointing that authority lightly. There is always the implication that god sees whether his programs on earth are provided for adequately or not, and to the extent you're not pulling your weight, well ... let's just say he might be less than impressed.

* In churches that preach the "prosperity gospel" the quid pro quo is definitely material, in other churches it might be more spiritual in nature but there is always some kind of "blessing" held out as an incentive.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

This is not about if the contribution put less of a strain on governments to take care of others.

It's not about tax breaks, either, but you brought that up.

It is about what constitutes 'charity' and that being used as a measure to conclude the title of this thread. Giving to your own church to take care of yourself should not be considered charity.

Charitable giving, regardless of who the beneficiaries are -- provided they are truly in need -- is still charitable giving. Mormons take care of their own and they take care of people all over the world. That is a fact, regardless of whether you want to believe it or not.

I know directly that the money given to churches, of all sorts, does not go to things that constitute charity - like paying for that plane or the pastor salary, or events that stroke the religious mind with propaganda about their own beliefs, or mission work for spreading the 'truth.' When the IRS gets these figures from the 501c3 organizations these details are lost.

100% of the money donated to the LDS Church's Humanitarian Fund goes to support humanitarian causes worldwide. There are no strings attached. That's another fact. In the vast majority of the cases, the recipients are not Mormon and, more than likely, do not realize where the donations came from. That's true charity.

My girlfriend is an ex Mormon and whether or not there is some stated 'rule' she was always pressured explicitly or implicitly to give if you want to be a 'good' Mormon. To suggest that this kind of psychological manipulation is not real and part of the motive behind such 'charity' is asinine. I hear this from a lot of religious people not just Mormons.

Whatever. To go on and on about something you know relatively little about is what's asinine, particularly when you have a reliable source telling you you're wrong.

[Petunia 100]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

Whatever. To go on and on about something you know relatively little about is what's asinine, particularly when you have a reliable source telling you you're wrong.

The girlfriend is not a reliable source when it comes to her own experiences?

If you want to say that in many years of membership you personally have not experienced pressure to donate, that is fine. I accept your statement at face value. When you insist that you know what others have personally experienced, you lose credibility.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Petunia 100

The girlfriend is not a reliable source when it comes to her own experiences?

If you want to say that in many years of membership you personally have not experienced pressure to donate, that is fine. I accept your statement at face value. When you insist that you know what others have personally experienced, you lose credibility.

Well, I guess I'll just have to accept my loss of credibility with you. All I can say is what I know Church policy to be. Mormons are taught to tithe. They are also taught to give the equivalent of the cost of two meals per month to the Church, fasting for those two meals. If you are taught in Church that you should tithe, dress modestly, abstain from eating or drinking certain things, read and study the scriptures regularly, be honest in how you deal with people, etc. and you don't do those things, I can see where you'd claim you were pressured. The fact remains that while these things are taught from the pulpit, it would be extremely unusual for a person to be personally harassed for failure to comply. And in the case of monetary contributions, you would never be asked to "prove" that you were paying an honest tithe. No one but the leadership of your own congregation would even know that you weren't paying.

So the girlfriend felt pressured? Okay. And yes, she is a reliable source when it comes to her own experiences.

Originally Posted by Katzpur

It's not about tax breaks, either, but you brought that up.

Tax breaks are directly related to the issue of motivation to a 501c3 organization which is what these IRS stats are based on.

Charitable giving, regardless of who the beneficiaries are -- provided they are truly in need -- is still charitable giving. Mormons take care of their own and they take care of people all over the world. That is a fact, regardless of whether you want to believe it or not.

Again, this issue is not about this. I have no problem believing they do take care of themselves. Again the issue was not whether this was considered charitable giving or not.

100% of the money donated to the LDS Church's Humanitarian Fund goes to support humanitarian causes worldwide. There are no strings attached. That's another fact. In the vast majority of the cases, the recipients are not Mormon and, more than likely, do not realize where the donations came from. That's true charity.

Again this study was not based upon the LDS's Humanitarian Fund. None of these nuanced 'funds' are calculated by the study nor taken into account by the IRS as relates to this study.

Whatever. To go on and on about something you know relatively little about is what's asinine, particularly when you have a reliable source telling you you're wrong.

Oh gee my girlfriend is not a reliable source but your are - now that's asinine.