[jeffkrol]

Why Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan believe wealthiness is next to godliness | Diane Roberts | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Lately Ryan's been citing Thomas Aquinas. He should take another look at Summa Theologica. In part II, St Thomas argues: "Whatever a man has in superabundance is owed, of natural right, to the poor for their sustenance. So Ambrosius says, and it is also to be found in the Decretum Gratiani: 'The bread which you withhold belongs to the hungry: the clothing you shut away, to the naked: and the money you bury in the earth is the redemption and freedom of the penniless.'"

The call to share seems pretty clear, but Ryan (and Romney) cling to the conviction that America should reward those to whom much has been given, and take from those who have next to nothing.

[Rondec]

Why Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan believe wealthiness is next to godliness | Diane Roberts | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Christians and Mormons (in general), believe that paying taxes is not a substitute for giving to those in need. The two are completely separate issues and the idea that you pay your taxes and therefore are relieved from an obligation to help others is more of a liberal ideology. Hopefully, those who have money go ahead and give, even though they pay taxes. Mitt Romney does pretty well in my opinion, but not sure about Paul Ryan.

[ihasa]

The whole idea of a welfare state is rooted in Christian values. What came before the welfare state (poor people helped by charity and church) never really worked. If people genuinely did give proportionally to their wealth, it might, but few wealthy people ever really do. If he wanted to comply with Thomas Aquinas, Ryan would keep say $100k/year (being generous!) for himself and his family, and give the rest away. Sound likely?

[les3547]

Giving 10% to one's church (tithing) isn't exactly giving it to charity. The largest portion of tithing goes to building more temples, missionary work, and other stuff to propagate the Mormon religion. A Mormon explains what he knows, which is restricted by the fact that the LDS church keeps its financial records secret:

Where does the money go? We are told that the tithing money is for the church and its administration. That means building churches, temples, and maintaining them, as well as the administrative expense, which is nominal compared to other organizations because the church relies on volunteer work at almost every level. Do some people get paid? Yes, but I wouldn’t think of it as remuneration for services rendered. It is to be considered as a stipend, enough money to survive. For instance, President Spencer W. Kimball, who in his youth was known to be rich and notoriously good at managing his own affairs, near the end of his life asked an apostle to borrow money to replace a worn-out suit. Serving in the church non-stop for the better part of his adult life left him almost completely broke, unable to afford such necessities as clothing.

Even with the extraordinary expense of acquiring property, building and maintaining buildings designed to withstand flood, storm, and earthquake, there is likely a considerable sum left over. The church doesn’t stick that in a mattress. Like any organization with surplus cash, it likely goes into our free market financial system and ends up financing businesses or even the government. I am sure that it is managed by some of the best financiers the world has ever seen.

---

Last edited by les3547; 09-01-2012 at 10:35 AM.

[jeffkrol]

Giving 10% to one's church (tithing) isn't exactly giving it to charity. The largest portion of tithing goes to building more temples, missionary work, and other stuff to propagate the Mormon religion. A Mormon explains what he knows, which is restricted by the fact that the LDS church keeps its financial records secret:

Last "guessitmate" was 1% of the billions in "tithes" went to "charity"........

The church hardly spends any of its money on humanitarian aid. It appears that less than 1% of its revenues goes to really help the poor and needy. And those funds are usually donated as a high-profile contribution.

The LDS church has donated some $1.1 billion towards humanitarian aid around the world between 1985 and 2011. During that time period the average membership of the LDS church was 10 million members (today it's 14 million). Doing some simple math quickly shows that on average during the past 25 years, Mormons have contributed $5 per member per year toward humanitarian causes. That seems embarrassingly low for a Christ-centered entity.

However, in more recent times, the church has loosened its purse strings in some areas that it is often criticized for. The LDS Church did make some sizeable contributions to Haiti after their devastating earthquake. Most of the contributions came in the form of material goods. Here's an article discussing the Church's Haiti relief efforts. They have also made some significant donations to some Utah homeless shelters. We're very glad of course to see the church helping these people and hope the church will increase its efforts in this area as it does have the means.

Tithing in the LDS Church

Donations to the Fast Offering Fund totaled £1,597,000. This was added to the existing balance of £2,005,000 already in the fund. £500,000 of this was transferred to the Church's 'sister' charity, LDS (Welfare). This money was spent on 'Direct Charitable Expenditure' which is defined as "expenditure directly relating to the objects of the charity". In theory this could mean the building of chapels, or paying staff (which accounted for £1,094,000 over 2005).

In Summary - Humanitarian Aid Fund (2004 & 2005)

Income - £761,000
Expenditure - £86,000 (11%)
On Tsunami - zero
Balance sitting in the bank - £675,000

Fast Offering Fund (2004 & 2005)

Income (plus previous balance) - £4,102,000
Expenditure - £1,000,000 (24%)
On Tsunami - Impossible to quantify*
Balance sitting in the bank - £3,102,000

(* Given the money was spent in the UK and Ireland, other parts of Europe and Africa are probably nil. We know some parts of Africa were affected by the Tsunami but not much, and nowhere in the report was a reference made to helping Tsunami victims.)

Why worry? We will say that we know the church provided very real assistance to some affected areas; we won't deny that the church does some good with the money. What gets us is that we sat there in sacrament meeting when the letter was read out and having seen the news over the last week felt moved to take the church at its word and really donate an amount that would make a difference. However, the money just sat in the church's bank account earning them interest.

It also seems to indicate that 'global' directives from the First Presidency don't necessarily apply to the whole church. Somebody at Solihull must have known that none of the money going through their hands would ever get to the Tsunami victims, yet they were happy to forward the letter with the directive it be read out in sacrament.

Note: financial information from charities in the UK has to be disclosed publicly so this kind of detail is available. Thanks to Darque for providing this information.

[seacapt]

Last "guessitmate" was 1% of the billions in "tithes" went to "charity"........

Tithing in the LDS Church

Jeff - there is almost as much BS anti Mormon propoganda on the net as there is BS anti Obama propaganda , possibly more!
I'm not Mormon but I'm real close to a few.
I will tell you that after Katrina the local LDS Church sent several truck loads of supplies , 3 van loads of workers and a professional tree cutting crew to NOLA for a couple weeks at the expense of the church and the volunteers.
Another interesting aspect of the LDS Church is that it does not pay any member of it's clergy.

[jeffkrol]

Jeff - there is almost as much BS anti Mormon propoganda on the net as there is BS anti Obama propaganda , possibly more!
I'm not Mormon but I'm real close to a few.
I will tell you that after Katrina the local LDS Church sent several truck loads of supplies , 3 van loads of workers and a professional tree cutting crew to NOLA for a couple weeks at the expense of the church and the volunteers.
Another interesting aspect of the LDS Church is that it does not pay any member of it's clergy.

That site was referring to the tsunami funds and GB REQUIRES financial disclosure of charities (unlike the US) .. so it is factually unarguable.. but feel free

1% of billions is a large number btw......

THAT SITE seems fairly "fair and balanced" giving both sides ..read the site .. then judge........

Purpose of this site

The purpose of this site is to generate discussion about little-known topics of church history to those interested in increasing their knowledge about these kinds of interesting, historical Mormon issues. We encourage people to think objectively about issues involving the doctrine, practices and history of the LDS church. Many Latter-day Saints are completely unaware of some or all of the issues discussed here, or have an incomplete, one-sided view of them. We present arguments and responses from both critics of the church and true-believing members and add some opinions of those that helped compile the data.

In our opinion, nothing on this site 100% proves or disproves whether or not the LDS church is God's one, true church. We merely present some of the strongest critics arguments used against the church and then find the strongest defenses we can find against those arguments.

There are many legitimate issues that many LDS members are concerned about and many Latter-day Saints have left the church over them. Our hope is that the church will start discussing these issues openly so members can know the facts from all sides so everyone can decide for themselves how important they think these issues are. We feel that if the church will start openly discussing these issues and perhaps provide some official responses, less people will leave the church over them and those in the church that already know about these issues, will feel more comfortable remaining in the church if they can openly discuss them.

[les3547]

Last "guessitmate" was 1% of the billions in "tithes" went to "charity"........

What I was referring to was Romney saying a couple of weeks ago that he never paid less than 13% in taxes, and that we should add in the 10% he gives to "charity" to understand what a contributor he is; of course, only 1% of his contribution (if your figures are correct) is actually about charity while 99% goes to maintaining and furthering Mormonism on the planet.

[ihasa]

23% is still awfully low even if you count the full tithe as a 'tax' that gives back to society.

[nu12ul]

In Islam one of our foundation is Zakat which is obligatory charity paid to the poor. This is only 2.5% of our wealth being paid directly to the poor. The money has to go to the poor i.e. a person and not buildings and in islam, it is their right over the the rich which cannot be deferred or avoided by the rich.

This is in addition to taxes we may pay. This is a great way to have a fair society, devoid of greed and selfishness and also to cleanse our souls.

The wealth we have is not ours, its what god has given us. See it as a test as in the end we all die and we have to account for the blessing of wealth we were given and how we spent it. One of the key teachings of the prophet is to love for your brother, neighbours etc... what you love for yourself.

The capitalist system we live in is clearly failing. I live in the UK and the govt here is doing the same, rewarding the rich and punishing the poor. The welfare state is needed in these difficult times than ever before. Furthermore, if the wealthiest paid their share to society rather than hiding their wealth in off shore tax havens, the treasurys coffers would not be as empty.

[ihasa]

Capitalism is effective but we need counterbalances - see the Nordic Model.

[wildman]

While great wealth may not make us a deity it apparently feels that way to some folks.

[Ratmagiclady]

Christians and Mormons (in general), believe that paying taxes is not a substitute for giving to those in need. The two are completely separate issues and the idea that you pay your taxes and therefore are relieved from an obligation to help others is more of a liberal ideology. Hopefully, those who have money go ahead and give, even though they pay taxes. Mitt Romney does pretty well in my opinion, but not sure about Paul Ryan.

Frankly, that's a projection: 'liberal ideology' doesn't *actually* claim that our social responsibilities are actually encompassed just by paying taxes: conservative ideology may claim that they shouldn't have to pay taxes if they think private giving would or should be all there is, that doesn't mean 'liberal ideology' is just the opposite of that.

'Liberal ideology' in fact doesn't tend to call excessive wealth as something to be pursued as some sign of righteousness/ Divine favor to begin with.


(Speaking of other religious views of charity, for instance, (hi, nu12ul, glad to see you here, ) a common view of Pagan faiths may tend to be even more so: wealth is simply less of a preoccupation in the first place: (I think even those of us more economically-conservative/Libertarian don't seem to be actually all that aquisitive: ) the idea of living in balance is big in these times, especially: Compassion and generosity and hospitality are big virtues for just about all of us, mind you: and our view of *charity* itself is closer to the Hindu notion of Seva: involving doing things for their own virtue/cause they need doing, rather than necessarily 'on orders' or in order to advertise some piety/convert people. Actually it's considered kind of tacky to make such a show of things, let's say, and we actually don't have one of those 'missions to convert people' that many seem to tie up with these things. (There is, however, a very common and pragmatic notion that goodnesses done multiply threefold, so there's even an element of 'elightened self-interest' there. ) There's however, no particular conflict between charity and social responsibility, whether that comes through taxes or not.

(Actually, our community's pretty well aware that being fairly small and without a lot of 'endowment' or social/economic networks some other groups enjoy, means that a lot of the very people most in need of society's investment are the least likely to be *served* by those same networks' 'private charity:' which, however well-intentioned, never could even really make up for the *gaps* in social services, even before rounds and rounds of public service cuts and increasing poverty and all. Which is a simple matter of numbers never really addressed in these debates.)

Certainly, no charitable efforts from the churches can even make up for, never mind justify policies which impoverish more people: even if it wasn't half-spent trying to convert people or primarily serve their own communities, (Which is also just fine of itself, but of course it doesn't do much for society's outcasts or minoritiesm) certainly, the Mormons in particular have a fairly impressive-seeming relief machine: stockpiling stuff to help people with is certainly one thing I can approve of: but on the other hand, they've spent millions and millions and years and years to, as it turns out, pretty much impoverish *my* little family, and not for the first time. Contrary to some ideological and factually-untrue notions of a 'culture of dependency' (which they want 'private charity' to take over, and make about converting people, not the proverbial 'hand up,' ) ...if you're a disabled member of multiple-minorities, what keeps you 'dependent' on the social safety net is all their *making it harder to stay afloat, never mind prosper.* They spend more money trying to make it *harder* for people like me to even establish our own lives in ways we can sustain, than they *ever* make up for privately. That's everything from denying marriage equality to sitting on the economy to extract more money and power for the very richest and their own religious authorities to in fact 'defending' the idea that LGBT people and non-Christians deserve bullying and harassment, even finding the 'family' and 'churches' that some can use to advantage instead turned against us. Just as they promote.

Even just that fourty percent of the homeless youth *out* there are LGBT kids cast out of their homes, perhaps on the run from families turned against them, (I was one: compare just my *health* outcomes to those of my straight sisters:same condition, apparently: for me the onset was fifteen-to-twenty years later in life, probably in large measure just from the additional stresses and living conditions, lack of basic health care/sufficient food, and all. ) But, think about it: that's fourty percent of the kids on the streets, (worse than even in my days there) ....for absolutely *no reason* but someone's 'culture war.' I mean, my sisters are really smart, don't get me wrong, but I was *freaky-smart.* Got into Ivy League schools that I couldn't attend: struggled to (fail to) finish state university, again due to conservative budget cuts as well as bad scenes about who I was with at the time, living my little life.

What *really* traps people in poverty isn't 'too much coddling,' never mind having people wear ourselves out just trying to survive while not getting any younger or less-chronically-ill. It's in fact all the options and possibilities and resources that are closed off, cut out, and such. It's not the grand gestures, it's the heaping on of 'little' stuff. And *systemic fail* Systemic starving out of the 'real economy' in which people can find a niche and be part of our living communities, even if we'll never be the corporate or Christian or Republican conformist 'profit-worthy' ideal.


The simple fact is, it's quite directly the Republican policies that have taken me and my sweetie from being expectant home-buyers with me off the disability,and doing whatever cottage industry I could bootstrap in some stable life, to living separate lives, both struggling to make solo rent somewhere, me on *food stamps, now, just to try and keep a roof over my head.* And we'd done everything right, never borrowed a dime save for her education she can't really use right now. Indeed, always helped people out when we could. We're probably not going to *get* our little happily-ever-after, ...America's not going to *get* the literal 'rags to regular piece of the American dream' story, *precisely* because of this starving-out of the 'real economy,' (My customers, her employers,) that comes of these Republican policies and conservative ideologies. And because when you're playing with a 'lousy hand,' *yes,* a little extra hatred, a bunch of extra-uncalled-for injustice can make the *difference* between 'functioning part of a prospering town' and 'Sick person trying to survive on what's left of the public services.'


So as much as they want to pat themselves on the back for wherever that charity goes, the simple fact is they spend as much or more both kicking people who are down as well as tilting the playing field in their favor. While claiming that if they don't get a bigger cut, by taking more from the people they hope to profit off of, they 'can't' 'be job creators.' Meanwhile they're still making record profits, ...while there's in fact more empty housing than homeless people... While the prices are kept inflated by GOP 'Big gummint' policies toward Big FInance.

But one thing *I* know is, I can't be doing so much to help others when they spend the big money to keep kicking *me* in the ribs. Claim some 'charity' makes that OK. Y'know?