Missionary Donation Deficit

[davesudweeks]

From a mistake proofing perspective, the whole premise of the Missionary Funding is backwards. Think about it. When a family moves to a new ward, everything changes (ward assignment, HT, VT, callings, etc) EXCEPT missionary funding. The Missionary funding concept is the exception to the rule so I am not surprised at the confusion. I would hazard a guess that (at least in the US), the fund moves to the new ward with the family more often than not.

From that premise, it would cause fewer problems to automatically move the funds and then have the few exceptions fixed by the clerks than the current process that requires EVERY missionary family move to be addressed by two wards (especially given the lack of training given to Bishops and Clerks in most cases).

But, that is just my opinion and I no longer have the Ward Clerk calling.

[eblood66]

From a mistake proofing perspective, the whole premise of the Missionary Funding is backwards. Think about it. When a family moves to a new ward, everything changes (ward assignment, HT, VT, callings, etc) EXCEPT missionary funding. The Missionary funding concept is the exception to the rule so I am not surprised at the confusion. I would hazard a guess that (at least in the US), the fund moves to the new ward with the family more often than not.

From that premise, it would cause fewer problems to automatically move the funds and then have the few exceptions fixed by the clerks than the current process that requires EVERY missionary family move to be addressed by two wards (especially given the lack of training given to Bishops and Clerks in most cases).

As a practical matter I expect you're right. But I wonder if this process isn't at least partly to help ensure that missionary donations remain tax deductible. The process emphasizes that the ward is paying for the missionary, not the family. If the IRS looks at how missionary funding is handled, the church can provide this process as evidence that there isn't a direct tie between the family's donation and the missionary's support.

Of course, I could be completely wrong about that. But from a tax layman's perspective it does make some sense to me at least.

[lajackson]

Another reason, I believe, is that it is very common for the contributions in the former ward to be out of sync with the actual sweep of the missionary fund. The family may have paid ahead. The ward may be helping with a significant amount of the monthly payment. Others may be contributing. I think it is easier to resolve those differences before the transfer, rather than after.

[gregwanderson]

[But I wonder if this process isn't at least partly to help ensure that missionary donations remain tax deductible. The process emphasizes that the ward is paying for the missionary, not the family.

This has always been my theory, which is further strengthened by the fact that no missionary is supported by exactly the $400 his ward is responsible to pay each month.

I think we make a mistake when we regard the Ward Mission Fund the same way we do Tithing or other charitable categories. The Ward Mission Fund actually does need to be watched and even maintained. With Tithing, on the other hand, you just record the donations and never think about them again, usually without getting into trouble.

[davesudweeks]

All good points, and insightful. All the more reason to have good training for Clerks and Bishops.

[johnshaw]

All good points, and insightful. All the more reason to have good training for Clerks and Bishops.

Unfortunately there seems to need to be a bit of obfuscation on this one, we want to keep the idea that the missionary funds his own mission (we're so proud to say that) but tax implications are better if we say that a ward sends a missionary. No Stake President or Bishop I ever worked with had the notion that a ward sends a missionary... none, nada, only stake clerk who provides some training to ward clerks, and then helps work through the issues.

If the ward is really responsible, shouldn't there be a bigger call to contribute to that fund and help relieve the stress of families? I'd much rather pay $100 a month to a ward fund for the 20 years while I'm raising my children rather than the $800 a month that might hit me with two out at a time in a very short period of time. Seems more like a way we'd do it in a zion community to me.

[gregwanderson]

If the ward is really responsible, shouldn't there be a bigger call to contribute to that fund and help relieve the stress of families?

But the way we're doing it now is already designed to take stress away from families. When I was a full-time missionary (ancient history) you and/or your family just paid whatever it cost. So the millionaire's son might be in Peru where it cost less than $100 per month to survive while the strapped, farmer's family had to struggle to support a son in Japan where it cost $1,000 per month. That money didn't pass through the ward at all (and was not easily claimed as a charitable contribution… and there was a high-profile lawsuit involving an LDS family and the IRS… before the system we have now). So we've moved a lot closer to the system you're advocating than we were during ancient times.

The question, I suppose, is what actually happens to the money which goes to the General Missionary Fund. What if that fund suddenly received much bigger donations? Would the church eventually use it to support missionaries instead of using the ward fund? There's no real accounting for how much is needed in the General Fund… or at least nothing that the average donor knows about.

[johnshaw]

I was a missionary when the change happened, in fact, I was at BYU when one of my roommates father showed up with a new porsche... he told us that the $82 per month it was going to cost for his son's mission was going to be the cheapest two years of his son's life to that point....

The general missionary fund is used OUTSIDE the area where ward missionary funds are used. When a ward has excessive ward missionary monies, they send to the stake, they stake then sends to the church and that money is converted to the general fund. The General fund pays to send missionaries that serve in areas where the budget allocation system isn't in play.... (mostly outside the western world)

The problem is that nobody really knows this stuff. We had wards that were sending me excess ward missionary contributions where (1) they had multiple individual missionary accounts that were in the negative thousands of dollars, and (2) that same ward was contributing significantly to the general missionary fund (we looked back in the electronic record, not a single member of their ward (who didn't have a serving missionary) had contributed to the 'ward missionary fund'.

The Bishop, myself and the SP counseled about instructing the members about the funds and what they were used for. The Bishop then challenged the members to pray about their donations and if they felt they could help the ward missionary fund to start contributing in that way.... The negative balances in ward missionary quickly evaporated, and the excess started making it to the general fund quickly.

My point is, I saw some pretty desperate situations where a family was sending a missionary out, knowing they couldn't fund the entire mission themselves, The family committed to contributing $100 a month, but the Bishop didn't 'make up the difference' - Which is the way it should be done. We don't deficit spend with a missionary, we shouldn't force a family to pay the rest of their lives for not having enough to send a faithful son/daughter on a mission. I saw out-of-work families trying to figure out what to do, no family, should ever be in the position of feeling BAD that they have a missionary serving.

I wonder what would happen if I showed a Bishop a receipt that in the 20 years of my marriage I've paid $24,000 @ $100 per month and explained that I was planning on paying $100 per month for the time that my missionaries were serving... Even if I maybe had moved several times... how do you think that reaction would go?

I curr

[gregwanderson]

The general missionary fund is used OUTSIDE the area where ward missionary funds are used. When a ward has excessive ward missionary monies, they send to the stake, they stake then sends to the church and that money is converted to the general fund.

…but maybe that could change someday. When I was in college (ancient history) we still donated to the Ward Budget directly and the Bishop would ask us for specific commitments to support that fund. But shortly after that it was decided that Tithing funds would be sufficient and no additional funding would be donated to the Ward Budget. I'm just suggesting that, if there were somehow enough money in the General Missionary Fund then maybe the Ward Missionary Fund could cease to be (but I'm not holding my breath for that).

I wonder what would happen if I showed a Bishop a receipt that in the 20 years of my marriage I've paid $24,000 @ $100 per month and explained that I was planning on paying $100 per month for the time that my missionaries were serving... Even if I maybe had moved several times... how do you think that reaction would go?

The trouble is that, as it's designed right now, the Ward Mission Fund is for pass-through money. It is not a savings account for any individual nor for the ward. Trying to use it like that will only cause problems for individuals and for clerks. But you're welcomed to keep your own savings account going for 20 years and still have that $24,000 ready to use. Another problem is that perhaps the son or daughter we intend to support on a mission won't be able to serve for some reason and/or dies before they're old enough. Then our heartbreak is compounded by the fact that we "lost" the money that was meant to help support their missionary service. (…money that may be needed for other expenses given that the person's plans have changed.)

In short, I believe that the church encourages the use of personal savings accounts in anticipation of the expense of missionary service. And I really can't see how doing it that way is any more difficult than the idea of donating $100 per month to the church for 20 years.

[johnshaw]

…but maybe that could change someday. When I was in college (ancient history) we still donated to the Ward Budget directly and the Bishop would ask us for specific commitments to support that fund. But shortly after that it was decided that Tithing funds would be sufficient and no additional funding would be donated to the Ward Budget. I'm just suggesting that, if there were somehow enough money in the General Missionary Fund then maybe the Ward Missionary Fund could cease to be (but I'm not holding my breath for that).

I believe this could eventually be the case, but the prerequisite is that ALL areas of the world be on the same tithing-paid budgeting system we are on in the western world. The blog posts of missionaries serving in South American countries are seeing an emphasis on tithing, IMHO, in advance, I hope, of preparing those countries to be on this same system. The Perpetual Education Fund was a 'start' for this process, again IMHO... But it doesn't seem, as you've said, this doesn't seem to be something that we'll see in any near future I could anticipate.

The trouble is that, as it's designed right now, the Ward Mission Fund is for pass-through money. It is not a savings account for any individual nor for the ward. Trying to use it like that will only cause problems for individuals and for clerks. But you're welcomed to keep your own savings account going for 20 years and still have that $24,000 ready to use. Another problem is that perhaps the son or daughter we intend to support on a mission won't be able to serve for some reason and/or dies before they're old enough. Then our heartbreak is compounded by the fact that we "lost" the money that was meant to help support their missionary service. (…money that may be needed for other expenses given that the person's plans have changed.)

In short, I believe that the church encourages the use of personal savings accounts in anticipation of the expense of missionary service. And I really can't see how doing it that way is any more difficult than the idea of donating $100 per month to the church for 20 years.

I don't think you are understanding my point here. The context of the discussion is whether a Family/individual is responsible for missionary funding or whether it is the ward. Every time as a Stake Clerk, that I called the Missionary Department, or the Finance Department they ALWAYS indicated that it was the ward that was responsible for the missionary funding and that is why the decision was made not to transfer funds automatically, because those funds are ward funds and not funds for individual missionaries. (I believe this is required to keep these as charitable donations that qualify for tax benefits) This is why Bishops must have a conversation or through the automated tool agree upon the transfer of financial responsibility, they are agreeing onbehalf of the ward and not the individual. At least that was the impression I was given.

So, given that the funding is really WARD and not individual responsibility (as seems to be the case from a tax-perspective), and here is the paradigm shift required for my posts above. Why not adjust and CHANGE (not keep the same understanding as you've been answering) the way we think about it. In your thinking, the money is still 'the family's or the individual's' money' and not the Bishops money. Like I said, if we as a ward, seeking for zion, participating in a zion community cannot bear one another's burdens, sharing the cost of missionaries, etc.. what are we here for anyway? If I donated $100 a month and helped missionaries that are serving when my son or daughter is 12 years old, and the missionary is 18... why can't the families that have 12 year olds when my son or daughter is missionary age, help pay for my missionaries? I'm not talking about a 'savings account' for 'my missionary's expenses' - I'm talking about thinking of this as a WARD Responsibility, a community that supports the missionary, not the individual.

The problem is that we still associate the equalized-pay - the $400 per month with an individual, everything we are led to think about, to account for, etc.. is individual. Your responses prove this point pretty clearly. But, this is the fuzzy stuff... it seems to be a very fine line we tread when we continue to administer the program.

BTW, do I think this will ever happen? No, of course not, we're too invested in seeing this as a mission funded by an individual and family, its in our mythos, it's part of our culture, and we have a way to 'obfuscate' it for tax benefits, so that's nice...

A family that joins the church with grown kids, the not-well-off families that have kids approaching mission age.. the family that is inactive that comes back to activity... just a few reasons why a $400 burden for a mission could really overwhelm a family that had no opportunity, or had no means, to finance a mission ahead of time.