When my family joined the Church 30 years ago last month, local units were responsible for raising funds to build any new meetinghouses.
Since then, the Church has done away with this practice. They bring enough tithing in each year to fund each building institutionally.
I can see the wisdom in such a practice. After all, it takes some of the pressure off the members to finance the buildings, and allows for controlling discrepencies between building size and status.
I’ve noticed something in the last few years. Members seem less inclined to want to clean the chapel. They seem less concerned with whether their crumpled paper towel hits the garbage can. And so on.
Granted, my exposure is limited to a small percentage of the thousands of meetinghouses the Church owns, so the evidence I have is anecdotal.
That being said, I wonder if it is common enough to be a general trend. If so, is there a correlation between absence of personal fundraising and the seemingly lack of respect for keeping the meetinghouses clean?
a bunch of us were just talking about that very topic over the weekend… how members are very lazy for lack of a better word when it came to taking care of the building. Out here right now, the custodian hours have been cut back and they are no longer required to do the bathrooms. We have 3 wards that meet in our building on Sundays and when we come in Tuesday mornings to open up the Family History Centre we go and check the bathrooms for patrons to use and at times it makes us just want to hang an OUT OF ORDER sign on the door rather then clean the mess up.
What gives???? Rather then putting leftover food etc in the kitchen garbage can, better yet take it outside, they just put it in the hall cans and again by the time we get there 2 days later and go to put stuff in the cans the smell of rotting food gets to you.
Every spring we have a building major cleanup for inside and outside. We used to get a large turnout and it was a Family Home Evening event. Now we are lucky to get 10 families. That never would have happened before. I don’t know why people have gotten like that. Whether or not my money is being collected to build a meetinghouse or I am actually helping in building one, it’s the Lord’s house and is a sign of respect. Isn’t it?
We’ve recently had some training in our stake on members cleaning the chapel. A point emphasized was that this program wasn’t adopted as a money-saving measure. It was motivated by a desire to make better people and increase respect and consideration for meetinghouses.
Why doesn’t the church just hire professional cleaners? They have the funds.
I think if the church hired professional cleaners, members would have even less respect for the building. I remember when I was growing up, that a member in our ward was the paid custodian of our building. I presume that the family needed the work. I also assume (don’t know for a fact) that the church perhaps thinks its money can be used in better ways than to pay for the buildings to be cleaned by professionals when there are plenty families using the buildings who are capable of keeping it clean. By being responsible for cleaning the building, we should also be more aware of how we treat it and more respectful of it. I know, however, that in our ward it has been hard to get people to come in and actually clean when it is their turn on the rotation.
I know that in my experience I did not think about what it takes to take care of the buildings. I then got assigned as building Lockup man and for a year straight I walked the building every night to lock up. I noticed first hand how the building can get taken advantage of. During that time for a 3 month stint I also was in charge of finding 2 families a week to clean the building.I then made sure my Family Signed up for cleaning (in fact we filled in when no one could be found) – I also made sure my kids went with us. It taught them respect for the chapel, not leaving things on the floor, They are now more hesitant to smear the door windows, because they had cleaned them. I think it taught them respect and reverence for the chapel.
So the only way to learn respect for the building is to clean it? Cleaning it? Really?
Being worried about making more work for yourself is not the same as respecting something. Nor is getting the hand-out custodial duties because you need the job.
If you really want to keep respect for the meetinghouse high, make EVERYONE clean it. Not volunteers, everyone. Bring ’em all out on a Saturday and get ’em to work.
If they don’t show, double their tithing requirements. :P
Rick
The members should be responsible for looking after their buildings. It’s a part of self sufficiency. And those who do take part in keeping the churches clean are more sensitive to that at other times, looking after it and such. Those who don’t have a tendency to take it for granted or have the attitude of ‘it’s not my problem’.
For what it’s worth, I have a lot more respect for my building after I got “volunteered” to clean it along with three other families, and only 3 people (including myself) showed up.
If you want that question answered, you probably need to ask the person who said that the only way to learn respect for the building is to clean it. Who was that?
I think the cleaning program may be the closest we will come in the near future to the old building program, in which members literally built their own chapels. The anecdotal experience of many of my friends and family members is that members who participated in those projects had a tremendous respect for the buildings, didn’t abuse them, and kept them clean. It seems intuitively sensible to me that when people invest their time in cleaning the building, they’re going to be more careful about keeping it clean and treating it well.
Well, I was taught to treat other people’s things with respect, and have taught my children the same. I would never go into some one’s home and mess it up, wear my shoes, (a Canadian thing I think), or leave my trash. I don’t clean their houses either.
Likewise, I don’t litter, wouldn’t dream of it. What I am getting at is thus….you don’t necessarily have to clean something have some respect for it.
I was taught the same and teach my children the same. But most people need to experience actually taking care of something in order to have respect for it. Though you may not HAVE to clean something to gain respect for it, it can help for those who are clueless otherwise. And unfortunately there are many of those.
Most of the wards I have been on the memebers seem very motivated to help keep the church building clean.
It’s ultimately about priorities…. All members have a limited amount of time that they are able/willing to devote to the church. Do we really want that time spent allocated to cleaning church toilets, something we could easily pay someone to do, or should we ask them to do something we can’t just pay someone to do (i.e. visit the sick/widows, etc.)?
I am sure there’s a positive correlation between members paying for their own chapels and respect for the chapels. I also bet there’s a positive correlation between the frequency of members being hit up for more money in addition to their 10% by local leaders and the number of people who go inactive or leave the church.
we have a new bishopric and Sunday we were met with a cleaning schedule on the bulletin board. Each family is assigned a Saturday to come and clean the building. This way it does not fall always on the chosen few who never say no and get so taken advantage of. Should be interesting on how it turns out.
We’ve been doing a similar way all year. The result is pretty much the same.
We are loosing a sense of the sacred….
“We are loosing a sense of the sacred….” and our spelling is pretty loose too.
We pay alot of money in tithing to where i have no problem hiring a staff to clean the building. There is no reason why the church can’t invest the hard earned funds that have been donated by the members in taking care of the building they assemble in. I remember a time when garments were obscenely priced with over a 300% mark up, and then the church decided to be fair to their members by lowering the prices to a reasonable markup. Now is a time to be reasonable again and lessen the burden of having the members clean the buildings
Cleaning the chapel is a burden? Hmmm…I have never thought so. I suppose cleaning my house is a burden too? Maybe I should let someone else do it.
A little work never hurt anyone and too bad that seems to be a failing art.
Tom, are you considering that every dollar we spend on custodial services is one that could be spent on building another chapel or temple, or on producing and sending teaching materials, for countries where people have very little? I think when we can save money as a church through measures as small and simple as a little volunteer cleaning, we should do it so those resources can be used where they’re more badly needed.
“I think when we can save money as a church through measures as small and simple as a little volunteer cleaning, we should do it so those resources can be used where they’re more badly needed.”
Like with unemployed LOCAL membership, perhaps? Why not keep the tithing local and hire a member to clean the chapel?
Tithing is kept local. Members used to be hired. But there is no reason why members can’t help out. We have been doing this for years and it is no hardship.
“Tithing is kept local.”
Portions of your tithing are transferred to the main LDS Church charity every year (in Cardston for Canada and in Salt Lake for the U.S.A.) These funds are certainly not kept exclusively in the area where they were paid.
But we always get, for our wards and stakes, exactly what is needed and this all comes from tithing. Many wards do not pay enough in tithing to keep the whole ward in their budget. So we can be assured that our tithing is being used to help our ward as much as is needed.
oh and other wards too.
I would like to make a few comments based on what I have read. One, I am impressed with the manner in which everyone has rendered an opinion. I feel like everyones comments that I have read, have brought a unique perspective to the issue. Two, I don’t think I need to clean a building in order to have respect for it. I have never been in the SLC Temple, but I have an imense respect for it. The honest truth is when you have 3 wards meet on a Sunday, you are looking at about 1000 people in the building through out the course of the day. Of course there will be a need to clean up after such a large multitude which warrants cleaning and not a guilt trip on how a thousand people acting normal can dirty a building.
Three, our church is in a position of great financial independence. As a church we are not struggling for funds. If the decision to build a thousand temples was decided tomorrow, they could cut a check and fund such large building project outright. I don’t see where we are in need of having to sacrafice when the funds are already available. Tithing is paid so that there are funds dedicated to local needs. Paying a staff to clean the building not only stimulates a local economy to a degree, but also shows a local church dedicating local funds to a local economy.
I think the honest truth is that some church leader(s) felt it prudent to volunteer the members time to clean church buildings thinking that it would save money. I also hope that there will be an evaluation of implementing this member cleaning the building program, and that the determination will be that the members time is more precious than asking them to save money by cleaning a church building that they have already donated 10% of their funds to preserving already.
Trying to understand why it would be more virtuous to “keep tithing local” and provide additional funding to comparatively affluent units in North America, rather than use the funds in places like Africa and the Philippines where the needs for basic buildings and supplies are far more serious than our need to avoid simple cleaning duty.
Which would make sense if that were happening, ltbugaf. My perception is that the money, instead, goes toward purchasing land and holdings in Utah. If that is the case, keeping it local would be the better idea.
I don’t doubt the Church uses tithing funds to bu property in Utah, but I have to wonder if the proportion of such use is higher than that used to purchase properties in developing areas of the world.
You could probably buy half the third world with the amount they’ve spent on that mall, no? ;)
No, but even so, are you sure tithing money was used for the mall?
Monies are fungible – the tithing funds could have offset other expenses and freed operating capital from any source.
No one knows because the tithing books are not open.
Again the myth that the Church has bought a shopping mall is being perpetuated. What really happened is that the Church already owned the land on which two malls stood. The Church decided it would be more beneficial to the community to redevelop the land for a variety of uses. Uses included in the new project are new housing, educational facilities, public walkways and park areas, and commercial uses. All these are intended to revitalize the area immediately adjacent to the Church’s headquarters and keep the area safe and beautiful.
Absolutely no tithes or offerings are being used in the redevelopment. Rick says all monies are fungible but in reality, money is always divided into categories that can’t mix: Attorneys and insurance agents can’t commingle their clients’ funds with their personal funds. Government officials can’t take money allocated for one purpose and use it for another (unless they want to go to prison). Likewise, the Church keeps its tax-paying businesses completely segregated from its nontaxed Church activities. That’s what has happened here.
This link explains more information about the Church’s commercial entities (be sure to click on “more information”):
The Church uses tithing funds to build and maintain meetinghouses and temples in various parts of the world, provide teaching materials, and so forth. The tithes collected in poorer areas such as Africa or some island nations don’t begin to cover the costs. For that reason, North American contributions heavily subsidize Church activities in the poorer countries. The buildings, the teaching materials etc. are paid for largely by Latter-day Saints in more prosperous parts of the world. Tithes collected in these countries stay in the countries and other money from richer members elsewhere is added.
http://tinyurl.com/yr6evo
Can’t tell what happened to my comment, so let’s try again:
It looks like some people are still perpetuating the myth that the Church is buying a shopping mall. What’s really happened is that the Church already owned an area of approximately three blocks adjacent to Temple Square, on which two shopping malls already stood. The Church decided that rather than continue the shopping mall leases, it would be more beneficial to redevelop the property into a multi-use area. The City Creek Center will include housing, open space, a supermarket, educational facilities, offices, and retail stores.
This development will not only serve community needs better, but will also help to keep the area surrounding Church headquarters vibrant, attractive and safe.
Absolutely no tithing funds or other Church donations will fund the project. Rick says above that all money is fungible, but in reality there are always categories of money that don’t mix: Attorneys can’t commingle their clients’ money with their own. Government officials can’t divert funds that are allocated for one purpose to another. Likewise, the Church always segregates the funds of its tax-paying business entities from donations such as tithing. Rick says the money used on the mall could have been used for other purposes, but I doubt that it could be used for building chapels and temples, or for printing scriptures and hymn books. Rather, this commercial money makes possible projects such as downtown development in Salt Lake City that would be clearly inappropriate for tithing funds.
The Church uses tithes to build and maintain temples and chapels, to print and distribute teaching materials, and so forth, throughout the world. In some areas, such as most African nations and island nations, the tithes collected would not begin to cover the cost of these activities. For example, does any serious person believe that Ghanaian Latter-day Saints have contributed enough money for the building and maintenance of the temple there? Likewise for the temple in the Dominican Republic? To make up these shortfalls, the more affluent members of the Church — chiefly those living in the US and Canada — heavily subsidize the Saints in other areas.
Deciding to “keep tithing local” would destroy most of our efforts in poor countries and leave the rich with more than they need. Asking members to contribute some elbow grease to the cleaning of their chapels is a great way to hold down costs all over the world, and make money more available for more important uses.
Here’s a link with some information about Church-owned businesses:
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=44812f2324d98010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____
Here’s the website that describes the project:
http://www.downtownrising.com/city_creek/CC_faq.php
For some reason, some comments end up hidden if the link is in the middle of the comment. If the links are at the end, it seems to be fine.
“Rick says all monies are fungible but in reality, money is always divided into categories that can’t mix”
We’re not talking about reality – we’re talking about the church. And their funds are transferable.
“Rick says the money used on the mall could have been used for other purposes, but I doubt that it could be used for building chapels and temples, or for printing scriptures and hymn books.”
It absolutely could be used for these things as well as for paying for the missionaries expenses completely or perhaps feeding an entire third world country (let alone the funding of a cleaner for its’ chapels).
The amount the church spends abroad is insignificant compared to the amount it generates through tithing and corporate landholdings and ventures and in no way is hampering its’ ability to give members in the area a salary to do honest work.
Do you have number statistics for these Rick? (How much the spend abroad compared to what they make).
the church does pay salaries where needed, but when it comes to cleaning the chapel, I don’t think this is necessary.
First: My apologies for dual comments above. The first one didn’t go through, so I tried the second one. Now they’re both showing up.
Is that actually intended to make sense?
No they’re not. The Church doesn’t use tithes for purposes like this.
Are you going to offer anything in support of that assertion? Or are you just planning to wish hard enough to make it come true?
How about sharing the figures you’ve been using to arrive at that conclusion? After all, I’m sure you’re not so irresponsible that you would make that claim with nothing to back it up, right?
So the church admits that it’s only given about $1 Billion to charity since 1985 (inclusive of 2007).[1]
Given that the church pulls in something like $5 Billion a year (see Ostling, Richard and Joan. Mormon America. pp. 395-400) and that they have holdings in excess of $20 Billion (which they can be generating a decent amount of revenue given even the most conservative of estimates) that seems to be a pretty small number, no?
You can also read all about some interesting numbers here.[2]
It’s wikipedia so it’s not really an authoritative source but some of the citations are very good.
In that the church makes so much money, I’m constantly surprised that the average lay-member shows little to no interest in seeing the books. The public certainly has seen what the church is up to since 1959.
I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised to see the books opened up forcefully by the US government in order for the church to maintain its’ tax-exempt status some time in the future.
The church also sends many service missionaries and individuals to serve in needed areas around the world. Not everything has to be given in monetary ways. Whether or not these statistics are true (and yes, I know they are fairly accurate) we are aware of or can discover exactly what the church is spending, where funds are sent and what work is being done. The church is an open book and you can find this information easily. There is a yearly audit announced at General Conference (but you would have to attend to hear it) and the church doesn’t make a secret of what it spends or uses or donates, etc. The church also employs many individuals, builds many buildings, flies General Authorities around the world regularly and does many other things with the money it brings in, in a very organised way. Many years ago the church was not managing it’s finances the way it needed to, and this mismanagement resulted in misinformation, debt, etc. LeGrand Richards stopped that pretty adeptly and now the church finances are very well organised and the church is not in debt.
Of course there will always be critics who see corruption or underhandedness no matter what.
“The church is an open book and you can find this information easily.”
Do you really find this to be the case? It’s been my experience that information regarding church spending and church investments is quite hard to find. The LDS church is certainly more private about its’ finances than many churches than lay their ledgers open at the end of the year for anyone who wants to look (as is legally required in places like England).
Yes, I do find this. Phone church headquarters and get the info, it won’t be hard.
Anyway, I don’t have time to debate it anymore, I have an emergency on my hands. Continue criticising and finding fault with the church. It doesn’t matter to me.
The figure you’re talking about is only the humanitarian assistance, such as wheelchairs, wells, food, blankets, and so forth, that are funded by special humanitarian assistance contributions, separate donations through LDS Charities, Inc., and sometimes by fast offerings. It doesn’t include ANY of the expenses of missionary work, seminaries, high schools and colleges, chapels, temples, books, teaching supplies, videos, bishops’ storehouses, etc., etc. that the Church has in countries outside North America (and which you’re claiming the Church shouldn’t pay for, so we can hire more janitors and keep our richest members from having to perform a minor service).
Has it escaped your notice that most of the Church’s properties are not revenue-generating? We don’t make money with bishops’ storehouses, with temples, with visitors’ centers, with meetinghouses, with seminaries, with Sunday Schools. In fact, all those things just keep costing more money, year after year. So why do you insist it’s better to hire a few janitors than to help out poorer countries with requirements such as these?
Rick, it’s obvious that you’ve researched these issues so thoroughly as to be a real expert. After all, only someone with the most reckless disregard for the truth would make claims such as yours without having the facts from reliable sources beforehand. So I’m suggesting that you share your vast knowledge:
You’ve said (in comment 37) that the Church “absolutely could” use funding from its commercial properties to fund chapels and temples, printing scriptures and hymn books. Now, to make this assertion, obviously you’ve had to research Utah and US tax laws to see what the impact on the Church’s tax status would be if these funds were freely commingled. So tell us about that: What would be the effect? And what are the reliable sources you consulted for that information?
In the same comment, you’ve said that the Church’s commercial funds would be more than sufficient to pay for all church buildings and temples, all its publications, all of its missionary expenses, and the feeding of an entire country, as well as hiring janitors for all of its chapels (so the members won’t have to stoop to prividing volunteer service).
Now obviously, to make this assertion, you’ve had to an enormous amount of careful research: You’ve had to find out how much the Church spends on the building, maintenance and operation of all its chapels and temples. How much is that? What are the reliable sources you consulted for this information?
You’ve also had to find out what the Church spends on publishing scriptures, printing hymn books, lesson manuals, handbooks and so forth. How much is that? What are the reliable sources you consulted for this information?
You’ve also had to find out exactly how many missionaries there are, and how much the total expenses of support (including all clothing, luggage and travel as well as other living expenses) comes to for all of them. How much is that? What are the reliable sources you consulted for this information?
In addition, you’ve had to determine the cost of feeding an entire third-world country. Which country are you describing? How many people live in it? How long do you propose feeding them? What will they eat? What is the total cost of this project? What are the reliable sources you consulted for this information?
Of course, you’ve also had to determine the cost of hiring professional cleaning services for every chapel in the Church. How many chapels are there? What are the costs of such janitorial services in each country where the Church has buildings? How do the costs add up, and what is the total? What are the liability risks that come from hiring this job out, and how do they transfer into expected expenses? What are the reliable sources you consulted to find this out?
Finally, of course, you’ve had to determine the actual income the Church receives from its commercial holdings. Which commercial properties are you including in this statement, and how much does each generate? How does this grand total stack up to the expenses you’ve said could be easily covered? What are the reliable sources you used to gain this information?
Ordinarily, I wouldn’t ask for this kind of work from you, but it’s clear that you’ve already done the research–after all, you simply couldn’t be so reckless as to make all these claims without backing them. So it should be easy to just pluck the answers from the vast information you’ve already amassed.
In closing, let me thank you for the amazing self-sacrifice you’re providing here. It’s extraordinary to see you show such effort and interest in the topic, since you’ve told us more than once on this blog how much you hate to talk about the Church.
You’ve a real flair for the dramatic, ltbugaf.
Let the church lay its’ books open and there wouldn’t be any need for speculation.
If you maintain that the multi-billion dollar corporation to which you swear you allegiance can not afford to pay someone to clean their facilities, that’s your speculative prerogative; just as it is mine that they could very well afford it and many other things.
It’s not a matter of whether they can afford to pay a janitor or not (they have in the past and there is someone who takes care of the building maintenance, so that’s not an issue) it’s whether the members should take responsibility. I for one feel they should. What’s the big deal? It takes less than an hour if you get enough people out and you feel a satisfaction in taking care of the Lord’s house and the place you get to use for Sunday worship and other meetings and activities. When someone else was doing all the work and members didn’t participate, there was a lot more carelessness with how the buildings were treated.
There is more to life than money.
That’s your only answer? You’re not going to provide anything to back all the claims you’ve so boldly made against the Church?
What speculation? Surely you’re not telling us that the accusations you’ve made about the Church’s finances are groundless, are you?
Wow. Did someone maintain that? Where? As far as I know everyone here thinks that the Church could afford to do that, as long as its leaders choose not to do something else with the same money. Instead, the Church chooses to channel those resources toward things that are more valuable and more important. They’ve also chosen to let the members of the Church benefit from providing some minor volunteer service.
The more I think about it, the more I’m amazed by the term “speculative privilege.”
Is that the new way to say, “Right to invent facts out of thin air whenever I lack real ones to support my position”?
Where was the term used? I’d like to read it in context.
Touché. I misremembered. I’m referring, of course, to the term “speculative prerogative,” rather than what I typed. You used it to refer to your habit of making claims about the Church’s finances for which you have no basis.