6 ms·

The Mormon church is hardly a laudable "non-profit" charity.

alttag 15y ago
Okay, they have some real estate holdings. But they've also provided significant relief for every major disaster in the past century. In addition, they offer job search assistance, food assistance, etc., through a network of farms, canneries and thrift stores. And all of this is funded by member donations in addition to the 10% mentioned by the GP. But none of that's the point. The GP was pointing out that a not insignificant portion of the population donates more than 10% of their income on a regular basis. In light of that, 5% isn't much, particularly for someone with a great deal of income.
- thebooktocome 15y ago
  "Some" real estate holdings? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Assets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_The_Church_of_Jesus... My point is that a person donating 10% to an inefficient charity like the Mormon Church is not as laudable as, e.g., a person donating some fraction of 10% to one of these: http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities
utefan001 15y ago
Since you brought it up. My experience is that the Mormon church is a very laudable charity. Humanitarian efforts relieve suffering for families of all nationalities and religions. -In 2010 the Church provided relief to people affected by 119 disasters in 58 countries. -Over 7.5 million people now have access to clean water because of Church efforts from 2002 through 2010. -Since 2002, over 193,000 health care workers have been trained in Neonatal Resuscitation Training. The World Health Organization estimates that 1 million newborns die each year of breathing difficulties. -Since 2003, over 550,000 people have benefitted from Church vision projects throughout the world. http://lds.org/service/humanitarian/church?lang=eng http://lds.org/service/humanitarian/church?lang=eng
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
jessriedel 15y ago
The point wasn't the amount of good being done with the money, it was the size of the sacrifice being made as it affects the life of the donor. Likewise, suppose I donate 5% of my income to charity A which is 100 times as effective at saving lives as charity B. My neighbor, of similar means, donates 50% of his income to charity B because of his mistaken belief that charity B is just as good. Now, I may know he's making a mistake, and there's no way I would choose to send my money to charity B, but my neighbor is still more honorable for making such a large sacrifice for something he thinks is right.
- thebooktocome 15y ago
  That's a truly bizarre definition of honorable. If that's actually what being honorable actually means to people, then I no longer want to be there. In my book, you don't get any points for merely thinking you're right. You only get points for actually being right.
  - chc 15y ago
    It makes no sense to judge people or award "points" for things wholly outside their control. As human beings, we aren't capable of perfect knowledge, and we don't have total control over most situations. So judging people on "actually being right" has limited utility. You may as well decide to slap a random stranger in retaliation for the weather being inclement. For example: If Gandhi had been assassinated earlier, would that have made him a worse man?
  - khafra 15y ago
    He didn't say "effective." He said "honorable."
chc 15y ago
I never claimed it was laudable or a charity. I just claimed that pretty much every Mormon gives more of his wealth to this cause than Lucas does to those causes, by way of illustrating that it was not as big a humanitarian sacrifice as the raw dollar amounts might lead one to believe without knowing how rich Lucas is.

Okay, they have some real estate holdings. But they've also provided significant relief for every major disaster in the past century. In addition, they offer job search assistance, food assistance, etc., through a network of farms, canneries and thrift stores. And all of this is funded by member donations in addition to the 10% mentioned by the GP. But none of that's the point. The GP was pointing out that a not insignificant portion of the population donates more than 10% of their income on a regular basis. In light of that, 5% isn't much, particularly for someone with a great deal of income.

thebooktocome 15y ago
"Some" real estate holdings? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Assets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_The_Church_of_Jesus... My point is that a person donating 10% to an inefficient charity like the Mormon Church is not as laudable as, e.g., a person donating some fraction of 10% to one of these: http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities

utefan001 15y ago

Since you brought it up. My experience is that the Mormon church is a very laudable charity. Humanitarian efforts relieve suffering for families of all nationalities and religions. -In 2010 the Church provided relief to people affected by 119 disasters in 58 countries. -Over 7.5 million people now have access to clean water because of Church efforts from 2002 through 2010. -Since 2002, over 193,000 health care workers have been trained in Neonatal Resuscitation Training. The World Health Organization estimates that 1 million newborns die each year of breathing difficulties. -Since 2003, over 550,000 people have benefitted from Church vision projects throughout the world. http://lds.org/service/humanitarian/church?lang=eng http://lds.org/service/humanitarian/church?lang=eng

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

jessriedel 15y ago

The point wasn't the amount of good being done with the money, it was the size of the sacrifice being made as it affects the life of the donor. Likewise, suppose I donate 5% of my income to charity A which is 100 times as effective at saving lives as charity B. My neighbor, of similar means, donates 50% of his income to charity B because of his mistaken belief that charity B is just as good. Now, I may know he's making a mistake, and there's no way I would choose to send my money to charity B, but my neighbor is still more honorable for making such a large sacrifice for something he thinks is right.

thebooktocome 15y ago
That's a truly bizarre definition of honorable. If that's actually what being honorable actually means to people, then I no longer want to be there. In my book, you don't get any points for merely thinking you're right. You only get points for actually being right.
- chc 15y ago
  It makes no sense to judge people or award "points" for things wholly outside their control. As human beings, we aren't capable of perfect knowledge, and we don't have total control over most situations. So judging people on "actually being right" has limited utility. You may as well decide to slap a random stranger in retaliation for the weather being inclement. For example: If Gandhi had been assassinated earlier, would that have made him a worse man?
- khafra 15y ago
  He didn't say "effective." He said "honorable."

chc 15y ago

I never claimed it was laudable or a charity. I just claimed that pretty much every Mormon gives more of his wealth to this cause than Lucas does to those causes, by way of illustrating that it was not as big a humanitarian sacrifice as the raw dollar amounts might lead one to believe without knowing how rich Lucas is.