smac97

First, from the Church Handbook: This policy is a prudent, protective safeguard that reflects both good legal judgment and wise pastoral practice. Here’s why it is reasonable and necessary: 1. Local Leaders Are Not Lawyers Most bishops, stake presidents, and other Church leaders are volunteers with no legal training. When they speak or write to lawyers, courts, prosecutors, or parole boards — even with the best of intentions — their words can easily be taken out of context, twisted, or used as evidence in ways they never anticipated. Requiring consultation with Church legal counsel ensures that any involvement is handled by professionals who understand the legal risks and can provide clear guidance. 2. Protects Victims and Their Families The handbook explicitly notes that “such sharing can be especially harmful to victims and their families.” Church leaders often hear highly sensitive, confidential information in interviews. If that information is shared in a legal proceeding (even innocently), it can retraumatize victims, breach trust, or interfere with ongoing investigations or prosecutions. The policy prioritizes the well-being of the vulnerable over any desire to “help” in court. 3. Prevents the Church from Being Dragged Into Litigation When a Church leader voluntarily inserts himself into a civil or criminal case (by testifying, writing letters, or providing documents), it can create the appearance that the Church is taking sides or has official involvement. This can expose the Church to: Subpoenas and discovery demands Claims of vicarious liability Public relations damage Unnecessary entanglement in secular legal disputes The policy keeps the Church from being “inappropriately implicated in legal matters.” 4. Maintains Clear Boundaries Between Ecclesiastical and Civil Roles The Church is not a court of law. Its leaders’ primary role is spiritual and pastoral. This rule helps preserve that distinction and prevents leaders from being pulled into adversarial legal processes where their statements could later be used against the Church, the member, or the victim. 5. Simple, Consistent, and Easy to Follow The rule is straightforward: When in doubt, call Church legal counsel first. It applies whether the leader is volunteering information or being asked/ordered to provide it. This single, bright-line policy reduces confusion and protects both the leader and the institution from well-meaning but legally dangerous actions. In short: The policy is not about hiding information or being uncooperative. It is about ensuring that any involvement in legal proceedings is thoughtful, legally sound, and does not cause unintended harm to victims, members, or the Church itself. It is a classic example of institutional wisdom that protects everyone involved. Today in the Salt Lake Tribune: When Latter-day Saint bishops write letters for criminal defendants, some Utah County prosecutors alert the church’s law firm This is a difficult topic. Imagine that a large and well-known nonprofit group specializing in humanitarian aid has a director of operations in a state who, specifically referencing his position with the nonprofit group, writes letters on behalf of criminal defendants asking the judge for leniency in sentencing. Further imagine that the person being sentenced has been convicted of a serious crime against a minor. Further imagine that the minor's family has previously supported this nonprofit group, but now finds out that its state director is intervening in the criminal matter in which their child is the victim, and the intervention is on behalf of the now-convicted defendant. Would the nonprofit group be justified in enacting policies prohibiting its employees from involving themselves in such legal proceedings in relation to their position with the nonprofit group? Now, let's further imagine that the prosecutor, having learned of the director's letter asking for leniency (in which, again, the director is specifically writing in his capacity as the nonprofit group's state director), contacts the nonprofit group and asks if the nonprofit group is aware of what the state director is doing. Is that an appropriate or inappropriate thing for the prosecutor to do? It seems like the latter. This prosecutorial practice is what Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray is now “considering how best to address.” It raises legitimate concerns: Prosecutors (as officers of the court) were helping one party (the Church) retract information that the defense wanted the judge to see. A legal ethics expert quoted in the article (see below) calls this “wholly inappropriate” and compares it to a defense lawyer improperly inducing a witness not to testify. Importantly, this prosecutorial notification practice is not required or authorized by the handbook. The handbook only tells Church leaders to consult legal counsel before they get involved. It does not instruct the Church to set up an informal surveillance system inside prosecutors’ offices. Here's a link to the story about the BYU dean: A BYU dean wrote in support of a man charged with child sex abuse crimes. It’s not an isolated case. From this article: The bishops and the BYU dean who wrote these letters were doing precisely what the handbook forbids: voluntarily inserting themselves into criminal proceedings by sending character letters to judges without first checking with Church legal. The policy does not prohibit the letters outright — it requires prior consultation so the Church can evaluate the risks. I wonder whether these bishops (and the BYU dean) are doing this A) in knowing contravention of the Church's policy quoted above, or B) in ignorance of the policy. If the former, then I think these bishops should be strongly reprimanded. If the latter, then the Church needs to do much better in training bishops, perhaps including follow-up trainings to address common breaches of the Church's policies by bishops. Back to the original article: "The practice began after lawyers with Kirton McConkie asked prosecutors to flag such letters, the office said." Wow. To sum up: KM's "request" created an informal, one-way information pipeline from the prosecutor’s office to the Church’s legal team. Key problems with this practice: It gives the appearance of collusion or favoritism. Prosecutors are supposed to be neutral officers of the court. Helping one party (the Church) suppress or retract information that the defense wants the judge to see at sentencing looks like the government is tilting the scales in favor of the Church. It interferes with the sentencing process. Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray himself acknowledged that this “raises concerns about a defendant’s ability to present information to the sentencing court.” Character letters from community leaders are generally considered legitimate mitigation evidence. Having the prosecution quietly help remove them undermines the defendant’s right to present relevant information. Legal ethics concerns. The Fordham University legal ethics professor quoted in the article called the practice “wholly inappropriate,” comparing it to a defense lawyer improperly inducing a witness not to testify. Prosecutors inducing or facilitating the withdrawal of evidence that could benefit the defense is ethically dubious, even if no “official policy” existed. The Church initiated the request. The article makes clear that Kirton McConkie asked prosecutors to start flagging these letters. From the Church’s perspective, this was perhaps seen as a reasonable risk-management step to enforce its handbook policy quickly. But it also created the very entanglement the handbook policy is designed to avoid. I bet there have been some discussions between the Church and the KM lawyers about this. Here's my preliminary assessment of what should happen, "Best Practices"-wise: 1. Utah County Attorney’s Office – Immediate Action Required I think the County Attorney should formally end the informal notification practice immediately and put it in writing. Issue a clear internal directive to all prosecutors and staff: Do not notify Kirton McConkie, Church legal, or any other outside party when a bishop or Church leader submits a character letter. Treat such letters the same as any other mitigation evidence: evaluate them on their merits and let the judge decide. This restores neutrality and eliminates the appearance that the government is helping one religious institution suppress evidence in criminal cases. This is not only the ethical thing to do — it is the legally safer course. As the County Attorney has already acknowledged, the practice raised legitimate concerns about defendants’ rights to present relevant information at sentencing. 2. The Church – Shift to Internal Accountability The Church has every right to maintain and enforce Handbook § 38.8.24.1. However, I think that asking state prosecutors to functionally act as a sort of enforcement arm of the Church for this policy was a serious misstep. I think this is a better way for the Church to go: Strengthen training and accountability for bishops and stake presidents. Make the policy crystal clear in training materials, emphasize the reasons (protecting victims, avoiding misinterpretation, preventing entanglement), and treat repeated violations as a serious leadership failure. When a bishop writes a letter in violation of the policy, the Church should handle it internally — contact the bishop directly, require retraction if appropriate, and address any pattern of non-compliance through ecclesiastical channels. I also think violation of this policy should be construed as a serious breach of the bishop's duties to the Church, perhaps even warranting being released from the calling (same goes for the BYU dean and his job). Stop asking prosecutors (or any other government officials) to flag or notify them about these letters. That request created the very appearance of improper coordination the handbook policy is meant to avoid. The Church’s current approach (contacting the bishop once they learn of the letter) is fine when they discover it legitimately. The problem was the proactive “tip line” arrangement with prosecutors. Why This Combined Solution Works Restores proper separation: Prosecutors stay neutral; the Church enforces its own rules through its own channels. Protects victims: The handbook policy’s core purpose (avoiding damaging or misinterpreted Church involvement in criminal cases) is preserved without compromising the criminal justice process. Respects everyone’s rights: Defendants can still present mitigation evidence; the Church can still maintain its internal standards; victims are shielded from unintended Church statements in court. Reduces future scandals: Ending the informal pipeline removes the fuel for stories like this one. Bottom Line The Church has the right to its policy, but asking state actors to help enforce it was inappropriate and ultimately counterproductive. The County Attorney should shut down the notification practice, and the Church should double down on training its leaders rather than outsourcing enforcement to government officials. Thoughts? Some questions to get the ball rolling: 1. Do you agree or disagree with the Church's policy and its rationale? 2. Do you agree or disagree that Kirton McConkie should not have "asked prosecutors to flag such letters"? 3. Do you agree or disagree that the prosecutor's office should should formally end the informal notification practice? 4. Do you agree or disagree that the Church should take the steps in the bulleted list above (under "Shift to Internal Accountability")? 5. Do you think a bishop should be able to write a letter to a judge (such as those noted in the article) as long as he makes no reference to his ecclesiastical calling? Thanks, -Smac

Message boards can indeed become "echo chambers," and I also wonder if they end up getting political. I certainly want to have venues where expressions of faith and affirmations thereof are the order of the day. That's what Sunday meetings are for, and General Conference, and attending the temple. I think Latter-day Saints ought not to cloister themselves, but we should also maintain faith-affirming places and venues and events. Debate and critique is better left for boards such as this one. From the "Habits" book: Good stuff, this. Thanks, -Smac

Habit Two of "Habits of a Peacemaker": I note with interest the author's cautions to gather information by A) avoiding "isolation or echo chambers" B) generating knowledge "collectively through dialogue, evidence, criticism, and revision, but also C) take caution against relying on "phones/social media, outrage-based algorithms, foreign disinformation." The last bit about "outrage-based algorithms" was, to me, intriguing, as it seemed like a departure from Hollis's broad-and-generalized-principles approach. From the the book: In other words, fearful opinions, frightening news, stories of threats to you and your family—these create the same dopamine hits in our brains as much less nefarious things like “likes” to our photos. So, we return to them. We consume them more and more. In time, we come to see the world not as a complex system with equally complex problems in need of sophisticated solutions. Instead: When we share a news story that gets us enraged or engaged, we receive rewards—and dopamine hits—as our friends and others interact with the story. They make comments. They offer likes. They share it with their friends. The algorithms running our feeds offer us even more similar stories. We share those, and the cycle starts over again. ... Cable news is no different. Turn on any news network, and, within minutes, you will see an eye-catching “Breaking News!” alert. If new, important events were happening at the pace cable news channels wanted us to believe they are, the world would have ended decades ago. The reality is that those stations need to keep as many eyeballs as they can on the screens for as long as possible. Their entire business model depends on it. ... Cable news has learned that their primary tools for keeping people tuned in are breaking news and anger. The breaking news alerts are strategically timed to keep viewers tuned just at the moment they might be inclined to leave. ... Because there is so little actual news, the channels must look for other methods of filling the airtime and keeping us engaged. They have turned to anger to do this. Talking heads pick the most divisive topics of the day, then offer their opinions on those topics in a way they know will be provocative. They provide us either bombastic opinions with which we are already inclined to agree, or they point out to us threats from which we do not dare turn away our eyes. ... Every time we pick up our phones or turn on a news station, we need to remind ourselves what those teams of psychologists and mathematicians are doing. They are not trying to pass on real information. They are not interested in our learning anything or becoming better citizens or being peacemakers. Whether we like it or not, they are trying to manipulate us, from the moment we let our eyes fall upon any screen in our lives. They are a formidable opponent in our efforts to engage in real learning. I have, for some time now, surmised that some critics of the Church are trying to manipulate their listeners to foment outrage and anger and fear. Against the Church and its leaders. Much of this is directed less to the general public and more toward the Latter-day Saints. A brief sampling of YouTube thumbnails: "They provide us either bombastic opinions with which we are already inclined to agree, or they point out to us threats from which we do not dare turn away our eyes." "{D}opamine-driven platforms..." This message board has helped me avoid "echo chambers," discern just how frequently detractors of our faith are attempting to stoke outrage and fear (as opposed to, day, presenting fair-minded and even-handed critiques of the Church and its policies and doctrines and such), and pursue what Hollis proposes is the "solution" to all this: "deliberate real learning—long-form reading, primary sources, critical thinking, inoculation against manipulation." Some years ago, just before the Covid lockdown, I went to lunch with a friend who had moved out of my ward and, I later found out, had turned rather hostile toward the Church. It turned out to be a very long conversation, several hours, mostly him venting his spleen about how terrible the Church was. It was sort of like a "CES Letter" highlight reel. A lot of pent-up anger. A pretty substantial "The Church lied to be" vibe. Quite a few "Did you know about {insert troubling store about an institutional policy and/or a member behaving badly}"-style questions. He concluded by declaring that the only way for a person to remain in the Church is to either be profoundly ignorant (of all the terrible things about the Church) or profoundly evil (via indifference to all the terrible things about the Church). I asked him if he had ever read anything by Daniel Peterson, and he said he had never heard of him. I asked him if he had ever visited Jeff Lindsay's website, and he had never heard of Jeff either. William Hamblin? Jack Welch? John Tvedtnes? Matt Roper? John Sorenson? Richard Bushman? John Gee? He had never heard of any of these people, let alone read anything written by them. In hindsight, I think elements of "Habit Two" were very much in play. My surmise is that my friend, who is still my friend, had succumbed to "outrage-based" social media stuff. I say this because the issues he had raised were a potpourri of grievances that had no particular rhyme or reason except that they were part of carefully and deliberately curated "gish gallop"-style compilations like the CES Letter and "Why I Left" narratives and ExMo Reddit / Exmormon.org talking points. And more to the point, my friend had nothing more than a superficial grasp of these topics. He pretty clearly hadn't studied any of this with any rigor or fairmindedness, as he did not recognize any Latter-day Saint scholars who had addressed so many of this concerns, and he could not answer questions about them, and he was way too conclusory about them. And this, in turn, implicates Habit One: "Intellectual Humility and Reframing": I think my friend didn't know nearly as much as he thought he did about the Church. The Dunning-Kruger Effect. That, combined with the "outrage-based" social media content and his (apparently) corollary failure to do the things that Hollis recommends ("deliberate real learning—long-form reading, primary sources, critical thinking, inoculation against manipulation"), has had a very big impact on his life. So again, I am grateful for this board, including the critics who voice their views about the Church. I want to hear what they have to say. I want to consistently vet my knowledge and understanding and perspective and presuppositions regarding the Restored Gospel and the Church that houses it. As Hugh Nibley more succinctly put it: “We need more anti-Mormon books. They keep us on our toes.” Thanks, -Smac

This guy is saying it was $7.7 billion (13.75% of EPA's portfolio). He is speculating that perhaps some of this money is going to go to a development near Kansas City: For my part, I think we may do a disservice when we publicly speculate about these sorts of things. I think we need to let the Brethren guide things in their time and way. And the splash image? Oi... Thanks, -Smac

I would not take that view, but I see how you could. So we're left with a discretionary decision. I don't think so. The vast majority of the Church's time and effort go into preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ and exhorting the Saints to live according to it. The Saints themselves don't think this way. And the First Presidency and the Presiding Bishopric have delegates the bulk of "accumulating money" concerns to EPA. And even now, the vast majority of the Saints don't even know what EPA is. Hmm. Then why spend years and hundreds of posts talking about it? Can you clarify? You attributed to the Church (its leaders) the "claim that it is a commandment for them to donate blindly to them." I am asking that you provide a reference for this representation. CFR for this: "The Church ... claim{s} that it is a commandment for {the Latter-day Saints} to donate blindly to them." Given that your declaration earlier today that your "assessment on these issues is in fact purely clinical and empirical," I am requesting a clinical and empirical reference for the "claim" you are attributing to the Church. I think we both know you can't satisfy the CFR. The thing is, if you admit that you fabricated this ugly and plainly false claim, then that tends to undermine your claimed objectivity ("purely clinical and empirical"). Alternatively, if you dodge the CFR about this ugly and plainly false claim, then you not only maintain the falsehood, you compound it and what it exposes, which is that your assessment of the Church is not "purely clinical and empirical." You sort of painted yourself into a corner here. I've been trying to apply the principles of the "Habits of a Peacemaker" book. Habit Three is "Assume the Best About People." Defaulting to assuming good faith and moral luck in others’ lives reduces defensiveness and opens the door to understanding rather than condemnation. Also Habit Ten: "Embrace the Discomfort of Non-closure." I'm working on this. Thanks, -Smac

You have mentioned this several times, but I've never quite understood why this point is so important to you. Could you elaborate? It's an important principle of good corporate governorship. Corporations have apostles? Called by revelation? To act as "Special Witnesses of Jesus Christ"? Moreover, the Q12 are part of the Council on the Disposition of the Tithes. Once a portion of the tithes is given to EPA, is it your position that those monies are still within the Council? If so, could you elaborate on how you came to that conclusion? If the Presiding Bishopric lacked access to EPA particulars, I could see your point. And if the Q12 had plenary access to EPA data, I would not care either way, as it seems to fall within the discretion of the Presiding High Priest to make such determinations. I just don't see this as a moral imperative. I'm not advocating for any of that. Well, okay. I appreciate the clarification. Okay. Probably. That seems like a breakthrough of sorts. The Q70 apparently don't have access to EPA data, either. Why do you think that is? Would it possibly be outside their stewardship? What, then, about the Q12's stewardship? From the Church website: Quorum of the Twelve Apostles Presiding Bishopric It seems like you are shoehorning, via generalized notions of corporate governance (with no substantive accommodation for the religious and claimed revelatory nature of how the Church is structured and governed) the Q12 into a space that is more properly the province of the First Presidency and the Presiding Bishopric. Do you disagree? Because they can't fulfill their fiduciary duties without that information. What "fiduciary duties" do you have in mind here? And how is the Q12's fulfillment of those duties impaired by not having plenary access to EPA data? Not really. I think responsible individuals should weigh their own needs vs. the needs of the organization they are donating to before making donations. So do I. I think there are particularized considerations unique to Latter-day Saints and tithes. CFR, please re: the "claim that it is a commandment for them to donate blindly to them." Wouldn't that be the case in pretty much any circumstance? Presuppositions and value judgments play a role in such discussions, to be sure. I think Huntsman's lawsuit was pretextual. You are speaking with the intent of helping the Church avoid such disillusionment? Thanks, -Smac

The "fixed principle" being keeping expenditures < estimated tithes/offerings? Under what circumstances do you think the Church should disregard the principle and spend more than it takes in? You raise a serious question about how the Church handles its resources, and I respect the effort you put into the projection. You argue that the Church’s long-standing practice of living within tithing revenue while consistently setting aside reserves is outdated for a perpetual institution. You project, based on specific assumptions (5% annual revenue growth, $1 billion added to reserves yearly, and 7.4% portfolio returns), that the reserve fund could reach "trillions" within decades, and you conclude this constitutes “over-accumulation, under-deployment, and hoarding” that fails the Church’s core mission. My take is that the Church’s approach is rooted in modern revelation and scriptural patterns of provident living and preparation: Joseph storing grain for seven years of famine, the wise virgins keeping oil in their lamps, and the Lord’s counsel in Doctrine and Covenants about self-reliance and wise stewardship (see D&C 42, 58, 104, and 119). Leaders of the Church have described this “fixed principle” as a deliberate practice of living within means and maintaining reserves for unforeseen needs—disasters, temple construction, education, welfare, and global operations—without incurring debt. Your projection is mathematically consistent with the inputs you chose, but I think the assumptions underlying your projection should be considered. Revenue growth, investment returns, inflation, and actual spending are not guaranteed to follow a straight line over decades. The Church has significantly increased its visible deployment in recent years (humanitarian aid, self-reliance programs, temple building, education initiatives, and rapid disaster response). Reserves exist precisely so the Church can act swiftly when the Lord directs, without being constrained by immediate fundraising or borrowing. Whether the current balance between accumulation and deployment is the right one is ultimately a matter of faith for the Latter-day Saints relative to what they believe to be the Lord’s appointed stewards. We believe the Savior leads this Church through living prophets and apostles. The mission of the Church—perfecting the Saints, proclaiming the gospel, redeeming the dead, and caring for the poor and needy—is accomplished through both temporal preparation and spiritual power. Reserves are not an end in themselves; they are a tool to enable the work to roll forward steadily until the Savior returns. You present what I see as a false dichotomy: Either the Church’s main mission is to accumulate a massive investment portfolio (success), or its mission is perfecting the Saints, redeeming the dead, spreading the gospel, and charity (failure). The Church has been crystal clear for nearly two centuries that its mission is the latter. Financial management is not the mission itself — it is a tool meant to facilitate the mission. Prudent reserves and careful stewardship allow the Church to: Build and maintain temples and meetinghouses worldwide without debt, Respond rapidly to disasters and humanitarian crises, Support education and self-reliance programs on a global scale, Sustain missionary work and welfare efforts even in difficult economic times. None of that is in conflict with the mission you listed — it makes the mission possible on the scale the Lord has commanded. Your reasoning also leaves no room for divine guidance. The scriptures are full of examples where God commanded preparations that looked excessive, wasteful, or even foolish to outside observers: Noah built an enormous ark for a flood no one believed was coming. Joseph in Egypt “hoarded” grain for seven years of plenty to survive seven years of famine. Nephi built a ship “after the manner which I shall show thee” while his brothers mocked him. In each case, faithful obedience to revelation — even when it defied conventional wisdom or “well-established principles” of the day — proved to be the wiser course. The Lord’s ways are higher than man’s (Isaiah 55:8–9). Also, the Deseret News article I quoted above indicates, to me, that the Presiding Bishopric know what they are doing. Thanks, -Smac

My sense is that the Church wants a very substantial backstop for its functions, and also has a substantial "bottleneck" issue, and is also very successful with its prudent investment and business efforts. Could you elaborate? I am glad we agree on that. I would not be opposed to that. Candidly, I suspect the Q12 know quite a bit about how much money the Church has. That said, the Q12 don't have direct stewardship over the temporal affairs of the Church. The First Presidency and the Presiding Bishopric do. You have mentioned this several times, but I've never quite understood why this point is so important to you. Could you elaborate? If you decline to publicly post your Social Security Number, I suppose you could be accused of keeping others "in the dark," as if not disclosing information is per se nefarious. Alternatively, if there is no duty to disclose, then I'm not sure there is a problem. I think the Church is using the vast majority of its resources to make the size of its investment portfolio bigger and that as it continues to do that, this problem will get exponentially worse. What a wonderful problem to have, though. I think their councils work exactly the way Bednar suggested. The junior apostle comes in to the meeting about the deposition of tithes. Along with the other apostles, he isn't told how much money the Church has. He isn't told what their investment income is, either. He is instructed that they "simply" do what they have always done--they set and manage towards a budget based on their projected tithing revenue, send extra money to Ensign Peak Advisors, and are not allowed to see what happens to it. I believe they are instructed to have reverence to this process. I believe a fundamental part of their process is that regardless of how many wonderful ideas they have about how the Church should deploy its resources, at the end of the day they have a budget equal to 90% of that year's tithing projection, so if they want to increase funding for project X by a dollar, they must reduce funding for something else by a dollar. According to everything I've seen and heard about the Council of the Deposition of tithes, that is how they operate. Where have you "seen and heard" all of this? Could you provide references? They aren't? How do you know? I think doing that is wonderful. I sense a "but" coming. And there it is! Again, what a wonderful problem to have. FYI, I am glossing over all ChatGPT stuff. I know effectively deploying resources is tough, but I don't have any expertise in that area. And yet despite this acknowledgment of difficulty, and despite your lack of expertise/competency "in that area," you are advocating an "audacious goal that required a $100 Billion commitment over the next 5 years." Or are you? Are you vacillating between A) the Church spending more, and/or B) the Church taking in less (such as by revoking the Law of Tithing)? Are we in agreement that the Church's humanitarian/philanthropic efforts face substantial logistical and practical constraints (which I have characterized as a "bottleneck")? Really? Do you think, for example, that the United Way should stop telling its board of directors how much money it has saved, and should start using 70% of its resources to increase the size of that fund regardless of how big it gets? I still don't understand this apparent preoccupation with whether or not the Q12 have direct information about how much money EPA has. The First Presidency knows. The Presiding Bishopric knows. The Church Auditors likely know. I think at this point the general public, or those portions of it who are interested, have a pretty solid idea that EPA holds huge amounts of money. Why is it so vital, in your view, for the Q12 to have access to the particulars? I think those are totally valid issues, but it is ultimately a different question than the question of how big reserves should be, whether the Church's "fixed principle" is wise, and whether the church should be more transparent with the apostles, general membership, and society at large. I realize charitable endeavors are really difficult. Just like building a high-quality temple on-time and on-budget is difficult. Or choosing a new employee is difficult. Or just like anything else is difficult. And I also believe that the leaders of the Church are genuinely good guys who aren't making themselves personally rich off of the thing. In fact, for reasons I can't discuss I could be more confident about this than you are. What I do know about is how to think about reserve levels and how to evaluate whether the reserves are too small, too big, or broadly justifiable. To what end do these questions take us? Some years ago I was watching an episode of Frasier which referenced "the Sultan of Brunei." I looked him up on Wikipedia: "As of 2023, Hassanal Bolkiah is said to have a net worth of $50 billion." I was idly curious about how this man accumulated so much wealth. I also thought it odd that the leader of a country with a population of less than 1/2 million people could get so wealthy. But it was just a passing thing. You want the information to be disclosed to the the apostles, general membership, and society at large . . . why? As long as the Church is operating within the confines of the law, what is the value of conjecture about "how big reserves should be"? My surmise is that this is more than just an itch you want to scratch. Thanks, -Smac

Compared to what? Compared to other religious and nonprofit and charitable groups. And yet I, a tithe-paying defender of the Church, am comfortable with the current state of things. Most reasonably-informed members understand and appreciate that the people who have access to and control over the Church's finances have put in place numerous safeguards, oversights, checks and balances, etc. so as to reduce the risk of misuse of such funds. We have the Council on the Disposition of Tithes, the Budget Committee, the Appropriations Committee, the Church Budget Office, the Church Audit Committee, and more. And these controls seem to be working. We get annual reports from the Audit Committee. Moreover, we see the beautiful temples, the tens of thousands of missionaries, the thousands of church buildings, the Church's humanitarian and philanthropic efforts, the canneries and storehouses, Welfare Square, Humanitarian Square, BYU, BYU-Hawaii, BYU-Idaho, BYU-Pathway, PEF, and so on. Could there be "more" financial transparency? Yes. Is "more" an endlessly malleable concept in this context? Yes. Serious question here. In what way are "millions of members" a financial obligation of the Church? When I hear "millions of members" I envision millions of tithe payers and millions of people doing volunteer work to keep the Church going. How is having members a liability? Virtually all of the Church's non-investment expenditures are intended to benefit its millions of members. The Church pays for buildings (thousands of them), utilities, maintenance costs, insurance (apparently we self-insure our facilities), lesson materials, missionary costs, Deseret Industries, Welfare Square, Bishop's Storehouses, BYU, BYU-Hawaii, BYU-Idaho, BYU-Pathway, PEF, Fast Offerings, and so on. All of these efforts are funded by money received and managed by the Church for the benefit of its members (and others). Yes. "Through tithing" donated to the Church, and "volunteer work" organized and managed by the Church. No. It is also less expensive there--building a meeting house in Mali is a lot cheaper than building one in Logan. And yet the Church still subsidizes, often heavily so, most of its operations outside of North America. Presuppositions and value judgments have a role to play in public discourse, to be sure. So what? Are you saying that the future Church needs giant reserves because it is both going to be insanely expensive to operate and it won't have any future tithing dollars or any future volunteers? I am saying circumstances can change, and change drastically. I am glad the Church is investing in practical things like farms and ranches, but other investments are also appropriate. You still haven't explained why the "fixed principle" of living within the Church's means is going to break down in the future, requiring trillions of dollars in assets. "Trillions." As noted above, we have substantial safeguards in place regarding the Church's finances. Nebulous demands for "transparency" and "more" seem to be coming mostly from people who have no real standing relative to the Church. It's an interesting phenomenon to see anti-Mormons hector the Church purportedly on behalf of "the members" regarding matters that "the members" are quite capable of evaluating themselves. Perhaps there is a better way to advance your argument than to present conclusory moral pronouncements about the Church from an AI platform based on value-judgment-and-presupposition-filled prompts from a strident critic of the Church. While that's true, it doesn't change the fact that they claim the money is being saved for a rainy day and not for a day that they figure out a way to safely use it for charitable purposes. I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. I do, however, appreciate your acknowledgment of the point. I think the "bottleneck" issue is a very important point relative to your criticisms. You seem to be proposing that the Church should (A) spend more on humanitarian efforts, or (B) revoke the Law of Tithing (or perhaps to a bit of both?). Assuming, arguendo, that revoking the Law of Tithing is a matter requiring revelation, and that such a revelation does not happen for the time being, then (B) seems to be off the table. That leaves (A). From 2020: Church finances: Presiding Bishopric offers unique look inside financial operations of growing faith From 2015 to 2020, the Church doubled its humanitarian spending. Would you agree that this was a good, even a very good, development? This entire article is worth a read. This seems broadly reasonable. Also, I can't help but note the "100 billion," a remarkable number, and compare it to an even more remarkable number you dropped above: "Trillions." Quite a bit of fluctuation here. This sounds pretty rational. Your various and repeated characterizations of the Church as a "hedge fund" come to mind. This is six years old. And the Church has improved since then. This is the "bottleneck" issue I have been noting. Do you think you have sufficiently taken it into account when evaluating/critiquing the Church's financial expenditures? As of January 2026, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has 383 total temples in various stages. This includes 211 dedicated temples, with another 55 under construction, 2 awaiting groundbreaking, and 108 in planning or design. Construction, operational and maintenance costs must be substantial. This seems pretty reasonable. We have covered a lot of these in this discussion. This sounds like a sound strategy, and one one grounded in the Brethren being "old, scared, lack vision, and are paralyzed by group think and tradition." The Church has some fairly unique objectives, I think. Interesting stuff. And all this published to the world by the Church in a newspaper it owns. Still, calls for "transparency" and "more" will always be with us. From March 2025: Church’s annual humanitarian aid increases to $1.45 billion An 60% increase in five years seems pretty good. March 2026: Church spent $1.58 billion — exceeding previous year’s record — in caring for those in need in 2025 I am grateful and happy to be a Latter-day Saint. I am grateful for all that the leaders do for us and our neighbors. Thanks, -Smac

This sounds reasonable in abstract, but when you look at it more closely, not only is it inconsistent with the Church's stated reasons for why the over-accumulation came into being in the first place (it exists as an economic inevitability of perpetually following the fixed principle of living on less than income, not because they are saving for anything in particular), it doesn't even make Economic sense--you can't eat shares of Nvidia, Bank of America, Meta, or United Health. Joseph was justified in saving up grain stores, but the Church cannot be justified in saving up financial stores? Is that your point? As long as it's revelatory, I'd be fine with it. I think it would be difficult to reconcile such a revocation with D&C 119:4 ("And after that, those who have thus been tithed shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever..."). I think Joseph Smith had it right: “Let us here observe, that a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation” (Lectures on Faith, 6:7). In my view, the Law of Tithing is akin to the Word of Wisdom, in that both are adapted to accommodate the Saints' weakness. Tithing is, or should be, seen as preparatory for the Law of Consecration. Those of us who cannot abide the lesser law are unlikely to accept the higher. I surmise you are speaking ironically here. Am I correct? You don't believe the Church is acting pursuant to revelation, right? Dunning-Kruger has some real application here, I think. If they were being excellent stewards, they wouldn't be over-accumulating assets. I recognize that your assessment sees things that way. I think "over-accumulating assets" is a value judgment that may or may not have application and relevance here. That seems to be at the heart of your commentary. You think the Church is "hoarding" and all that. Not sure about that. You are attributing the "how" to the character and predilections of the Brethren: I agree with all that. But frankly, I also think they are old, scared, lack vision, and are paralyzed by group think and tradition. They are hoarding money not because that is the goal, but rather it is an unintended artifact of the unsustainable and foolish "fixed principles" of running the Church on 90% of tithing revenue, guilting members to pay 10% of their income to the church regardless of whether the people need it more than the church does, and saving the rest in a secret fund that not even the apostles are allowed to see. We both agree that the Church makes way more annual income than it can deploy responsibly. I think we differ in why that is so. You attribute this to unnecessarily collecting tithes (quite the presupposition-laden value judgment, that). I attribute this to a vetting bottleneck and other pragmatic concerns. We also differ in how the Church should proceed from this point. You seem to be proposing that the Church should "revoke" the Law of Tithing. I think the Church should continue its wise stewardship and also, per then-Bishop Causse, substantially increase its humanitarian and philanthropic efforts. But even then the Church needs to be particularly circumspect. This video has recently made an impression on me: From the transcript: Yesterday you said (presumably as if it would be a good idea) that the Church could set "some audacious goal that required a $100 Billion commitment over the next 5 years and were hiring people by the thousands to make it happen." As the above content-creator notes, this is surely a well-intentioned proposal, but are we considering the inadvertent consequences? "It FEELS GOOD to give money to a panhandler and certainly helps them out in the moment … but at the same time enables them to stay in an awful living condition." Yep. So if John walks by a panhandler and declines to give him a tenner, is the bystander justified in dressing John down? Accusing him of not caring for his fellow man? Of being a heartless cheapskate? A summary of the above YouTube video (via Grok) : Thoughts? Is it possible that "a $100 Billion commitment over the next 5 years" might yield results such as "fostering dependency, destroying local economies, eroding human dignity, and measuring the wrong things"? Thoughts? Is it possible that the Church, aware of the foregoing pitfalls, is "focusing on development ... rather than relief"? This does not really seem to apply to the Church, but I would be interested in countervailing views. Again, I think the Brethren, rather than being frozen due to being "old, scared, lack vision, and are paralyzed by group think and tradition," are instead quite cognizant of these risks. Oi. No easy answer, really. Again, I think the Brethren are very aware of this. Would you agree that the Church, well-known for deploying hundreds of yellow-shirted volunteers after catastropic storms and such (as well as many other service projects), is already doing fairly well at this? How about this? Some examples of the Church's efforts along these lines: 1. Perpetual Education Fund (PEF) Launched in 2001 by President Hinckley as a revolving loan fund (not grants). Provides low-interest loans for vocational, technical, and job-focused education in areas of widespread poverty (primarily outside the U.S. and Canada). Recipients must complete personal-finance and career-planning training first, then repay the loan (typically within 5 years) so the money can help the next person. Impact (as of early 2026, 25th anniversary): Helped more than 130,000 members in 80+ countries. About 88% of graduates report finding better employment. It has broken cycles of poverty through marketable skills and self-reliance. This is textbook “investment over aid”—local ownership via repayment, skills for local jobs, and dignity preserved. 2. Global Self-Reliance Initiative (launched ~2015) Operates in 130+ countries with small, peer-supported groups (8–10 people) that meet weekly for 12-week courses. Four core courses: Personal Finances Finding a Better Job Education for Better Work (often paired with PEF) Starting and Growing a Business Emphasizes spiritual + temporal self-reliance—faith, accountability, hard work, and mutual support networks. Participants (unemployed, underemployed, recent converts, single parents, etc.) create personal plans and hold each other accountable. By 2018 it had already reached over 670,000 people worldwide; numbers have grown significantly since. 3. Employment Services & Resource Centers Free job coaching, résumé help, interview training, online job boards, and workshops. Deseret Industries (thrift stores) doubles as job-training sites where participants gain real work experience while serving others. 4. BYU-Pathway Worldwide Affordable, online university pathway (degrees from BYU-Idaho or Ensign College) designed specifically for working adults in developing areas or with limited access. Combines academic skills with spiritual growth and self-reliance principles. It’s built for people who need flexible, job-relevant education without leaving home or incurring heavy debt. 5. Latter-day Saint Charities Sustainable Development Projects While the Church still provides emergency relief (disasters, etc.), its long-term humanitarian work prioritizes capacity-building and local ownership: Clean Water: Wells and systems are installed only with community training, maintenance plans, and revolving funds for repairs—so locals own and sustain them. Agriculture & Food Security: Irrigation schemes, sustainable farming techniques, and livestock projects (often with training and revolving community funds) to increase local production rather than importing aid. Vocational & Medical Training: Partnerships that train local healthcare workers, teachers, and entrepreneurs instead of providing ongoing external services. Wheelchairs, Vision, and Other Aids: Distributed with local training and repair networks. All of these flow from the Church’s core welfare philosophy (rooted in revelations like D&C 58:26–28 and 104): “It must needs be done in mine own way”—helping people become independent so they can serve and build Zion. Fast offerings and other donations fund the work, but the focus is always “teach a man to fish” through skills, employment, education, and local leadership. These programs are the practical outworking of what the charity research document advocates: development instead of dependency. They preserve dignity, create local jobs and businesses, and turn recipients into givers. You have previously stated that assessment of the Church "is in fact purely clinical and empirical." Does your assessment take the foregoing efforts into account? Back to the Grok summary of the above video: I am quite interested in your assessment of LaCorte's article/video, and how the Church fares when viewed in relation to it. Then how is it that the lawsuits have all concluded? I think we can reasonably disagree about that. Special pleading is an informal fallacy where someone applies a general rule to others but claims an unjustified exemption for themselves or a specific case. It is a form of double standard or ad hoc rescue, where, to avoid evidence, a person arbitrarily cites special circumstances to make their case an exception. I don't think I've done any of that. I think all churches and charities should be as financially wise as the Church has been. You have presented, many times now, arguments - predicated on a value judgment - that the Church has too much money / is not spending enough of its money on humanitarian/philanthropic efforts / should give away large chunks of its wealth based on percentages (with no apparent regard for the need/effectiveness of such distributions) / should revoke the Law of Tithing, and so on. I have presented a number of what I think are reasoned and principled and pragmatic and evidence-based responses to your proposals. Perhaps of particular note, I have repeatedly referenced the "bottleneck" the Church faces in deploying the sort of large-scale humanitarian expenditures which both you and we (via Bishop Causse's comments) want to see happen, but I don't think you have addressed that much, if at all. Rather than "special pleading," we simply have a disagreement based on presuppositions, value judgments, and differing areas of emphasis. I'm okay with that. What are your thoughts about the comments from then-Bishop / now-Elder Causse regarding substantially increasing the Church's humanitarian/philanthropic footprint? What are your thoughts about the vetting "bottleneck" I have referenced? Candidly, I think we are sounding like we agree on a surprising number of things, but we differ substantially in our presuppositions about the Church. Thanks, -Smac

"Beyond a normal operating reserve" compared to what? In any event, I'm quite okay with the Church doing some things that are out of the ordinary. For example, we spend large amounts of money building temples in which proxy ordinances are performed. This not "normal" as compared to for-profit businesses, or even many other religious groups. "Clearly disclosed" to whom? What is the legal/ethical basis for this disclosure requirement? The Church has all sorts of "long-term obligations." Millions of members. Tens of thousands of congregations. Tens of thousands of missionaries. Thousands of church buildings. Hundreds of temples. Many many of business interests, including farms, commercial properties, etc., Educational efforts. Humanitarian efforts. Deseret Industries. Welfare Square. Regular meetings and lessons. And on and on. The Church's center of gravity seems to be moving away from the relatively affluent North America to a more diversified - and substantially less financially secure - international space. And the Church intends to operate in perpetuity, at least until the Second Coming. And we don't really know when that will be. Could be years, could be decades or more. Lots and lots of long-term obligations here, all of which will require maintenance and financial support after everyone reading this is dead and buried. I think the Church faces quite a bit of de facto restrictions on how it uses its money. I have previously written at some length about how the Church having huge financial reserves is a fairly recent phenomenon (just in the last few decades), and also that distribution/funding of humanitarian and philanthropic and religious efforts on the scale at which the Church is operating (internationally, with huge amounts of money potentially in play, with dozens/hundreds of "partners" and governments and such with whom the Church must cooperate) requires huge measures of due diligence and vetting. This is particularly so given recent discoveries of widespread graft and corruption in NGOs and nonprofits which purport to be trying to do good things, but which are squandering and wasting and stealing a lot. Put another way, I think the Church - like many other wealthy individuals and organizations - struggle with finding worthwhile and reputable partners with whom they can work to put money and resources and such to good and productive use. This may amount to de facto "restricted funds." This may be part of the plan. Dunnin-Kruger kicks in here, or ought to. See my prior comments re: the Church stagnating or losing ground in more affluent countries and growing in decidedly less economically developed ones. The Church heavily subsidizes most of its efforts throughout the world, with very few countries being self-sustaining. "Without that" being the operative phrase. Thanks, -Smac

There is also no provision in Jacob 2 or Matthew 25 that specifies the timeframe in which money must be spent, nor any prohibition against developing long-term strategies to facilitate the fulfillment of the Church's mandates. Again, I wonder if Joseph in Egypt had his detractors, disparaging him for requiring large-scale "hoarding" of food during a time of plenty. Or Noah, who was mocked for his preparation efforts that, at the time, seemed nonsensical to those who did not know what he knew, or else refused to accept/believe what he was saying. Lehi left Jerusalem, and all his wealth and possessions. Laman and Lemuel likely gave him some real grief over that. If the Brethren were living profligately, if they were enriching themselves, I think your critique of them would have more potency. As it is, though, they are being both excellent stewards of the Church's funds and are not enriching themselves. To the contrary, many GAs make a substantial financial sacrifice when accepting the calling. We are left, then, with what I think is an argument that, as Kathleen Flake put it, is not about financial malfeasance or nonfeasance, but rather is a power struggle “about competing views of what should be done with Church money and who gets to say so.” Again, where are we ending up? Has all this just been a combination of (A) the Church has been exonerated regarding the allegations of fraud in the tithing lawsuits, and (B) the arguments about EPA are an a protracted and ongoing "woulda coulda shoulda" sort of thing, where reasonable minds can disagree about what the Church should do with its money? “Fiduciary” may not be the right word for what I do. Insurance companies issue contracts, and they have legal, regulatory, and ethical obligations to honor those contracts, deal fairly with policyholders, and maintain enough financial resources to meet future claims. There is a highly developed regulatory framework around how companies do that, and the Appointed Actuary’s role is to formally opine on reserve adequacy. But I'm not a fiduciary in any of my current roles. That ends up, in my view, as a very important distinction. Insurance companies have latent - and sometimes patent - incentives to not honor "ethical obligations to honor those {insurance} contracts." Ask any attorney. Recognizing this, secular governments must impose "a highly developed regulatory framework" to compel insurance companies, when necessary and appropriate, to do what they are supposed to do. Insurance companies, then, generally do not owe a traditional "fiduciary duty" to their insureds in the same way, say, a trustee does, but they are obligated to act in good faith and with fair dealing. While some jurisdictions and circumstances, such as liability defense, can create fiduciary-like duties, courts often view the insurer-insured relationship as contractual rather than fiduciary. This is very must in contrast with the Church and its leaders, who do function in roles that are very "fiduciary" in character. I'm not going to write an essay about the differences between an insurance company and a church. Sorry. I wasn't expecting an essay. You brought up the comparison, so I was asking you to clarify it. No biggie. Understood and appreciated. I think we all have far less information about the inner workings of the Church, particularly how the First Presidency and the Presiding Bishopric are being guided to manage the Church's finances. Again, the Dunning-Kruger Effect has some real application here. Well no. My "reasons" are in part predicated on faith ("religious reasons"), but also on observation. Like you, I have some substantial secular training and experience that can be brought to bear when analyzing the Church's actions. My observations, based in large part on those skill sets, have led me to conclude that the Brethren are, cumulatively and broadly, doing a really good job fulfilling some very difficult obligations. These men (and, increasingly, the women who are General Officers) are overwhelmingly good and decent, and their motives reflect in their actions and decisions made on behalf of the Church. These folks are also cumulatively well-trained, well-experienced, and quite smart. These folks are also not "in it" for the money, or notoriety. They are "in it" because they believe the Church is what it claims to be, and they want it to succeed. Not for money or pride, but because it is the nascent and inchoate Kingdom of God on the earth. That is not to say that they are perfect, or that every decision they make is pristine and without flaw. But broadly and overwhelmingly, the Church is a wonderful institution, its leaders are good and smart and effective, and their efforts on behalf of the Church are both well-intentioned and, in the main, effective and prudent. I quote Quinn because what he is saying is explanatory and clarifying. The Church's finances are in excellent shape. If the Brethren were living profligately, or if they were being wasteful in administering the Widow's Mite, I would not defend such things. But they aren't, so I'm not. As a Latter-day Saint, it can be difficult to defend the Church and its institutional character and decency when discussing, say, the Priesthood Ban or Mountain Meadows. But when objectively evaluating the quality of the Church's management of its finances, my job is a relative walk in the park. No, I don't think I harbor much animus against the church, and yes, I think my assessment on these issues is in fact purely clinical and empirical. Okay. Thanks, -Smac

I think Jesus "values money" in the way described in both Jacob 2 and Matthew 25. I don't think the third servant's characterization of the master's motives is apt. It is interesting how two people can look at a situation and come away with such drastically differing interpretations. In my view, the Brethren are not "burying" money due to indolence or fear, as the third servant did, but rather are investing the money and seeking to increase it, as first and second servants did. I think reading Jacob 2 in tandem with Matthew 25 can help clarify things: "And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to do good—to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted." The Brethren are not enriching themselves (as condemned in Jacob 2). They have created a reserve that gives the Church security and capacity to fulfill its mandates: "to do good—to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted." I appreciate that, from your perspective, the Church's posture is not legitimate, and that you vary from the Brethren as to what the Church should do with its reserves, and that the Church's philanthropic/humanitarian efforts are insufficient, and the Law of Tithing is bad, and so on. I am inclined to give the Brethren a very big benefit of the doubt. I think they are good and decent and forward-thinking men, and also inspired. I think they are very cognizant of their duties. The Church's money is strictly held in a fiduciary capacity, and the Brethren are not enriching themselves. It sounds like you have ample experience of participating in a complex organization with particularized objectives and goals, centering almost entirely on fiduciary duties pertaining to money. The Church, and the Brethren leading it, have a considerably more diversified set of objectives and goals, with financial management being a means to those ends, rather than the ends themselves. Do you think there are any material distinctions to be drawn between an insurance company and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? If so, what are they? All I can do is base my analysis on what they've said. You've done quite a bit of speculating and surmising and guessing when doing so facilitates the casting of aspersions on the Church. I'm just wondering if you can accommodate speculations and surmisings that might go the other way. You are denigrating these "two basic and fixed principles." I am not sure why, as they seem to have worked remarkably well as far as stabilizing the Church's financial condition. You also are apparently unwilling to account for differences between accounting for the financial condition of, say, a married couple in their 50s with the financial condition of a worldwide religious organization with millions of members and many billions of dollars of property and income and reserves and business interests and investments and so on. Both of these stand to benefit from the "two basic and fixed principles" noted above, but the eventual and long-term objectives of the Church are going to yield some different results as compared to the married couple whose financial stewardship ends, effectively, with themselves and their lifespans. Yes. And in your view, this is a bad thing. In my view, it is a good and intended thing. It's all about the presuppositions, I guess. Personally, I do have the education and experience to comment on these things. Do you think you harbor any animus against the Church? Do you think your assessment of the Church is purely clinical and empirical, with no influence from your personal feelings about the institution? Habit One of the "Peacemakers" book: I have found this to be valuable for me and my assessment of legal issues affecting the Church. As much experience as I have in the law, I still think the Dunning-Kruger Effect has some real application. Regarding the finances of the Church: “I know only a fraction of what there is to know on this topic.” I disagree. I acknowledge your perspective, but I do not share it. The Brethren are not perfect, but they are doing an excellent job overall. I think this is attributable both to their native intellects and talents, and also to the Lord's guidance. YMMV. These conclusory statements seem to obscure, rather than clarify, both your point and your underlying presuppositions. You have said this several times, and you seem to treat it as some sort of self-evident indictment. I view it in quite a different way: "Wow! The Church spend most of its first 130+ years in cycles of financial disarray, but then along came N. Eldon Tanner in the 60s, and he and the other leaders of the Church have spent the last 60+ years stabilizing and strengthening the financial condition of the Church. They went from being nearly unable to meet payroll in 1963 to having enough excess funds to create Ensign Peak Advisors in 1997. And in the 29 years since, both through the faithful tithes of its members and the wise and prudent stewardship of its leaders, the Church has accumulated an astounding amount of financial reserves. And though some errors have been made (such as the SEC matter), on the whole the Church has had so much success in managing its finances that one of its most ardent critics, D. Michael Quinn, declared: 'It is an American success story without parallel ... No institution, no church, no business, no nonprofit organization in America has had this kind of history.' And other critics, casting around for ways to find fault, can only complain that the Church is not spending enough of its money fast enough to suit their subjective preferences and expectations. The Brethren are not getting rich. They are not living profligately. Many of them sacrifice their peak earning years to serve in difficult, and often thankless, positions throughout the world. They do so not to get rich or earn praise, but because they believe the Church is what it claims to be, and so consecrate their efforts. So too do the individual Latter-day Saints, many of whom only have a "mite" to give, but collectively have given the Church the financial means to do what it is doing today. The Church has money to build houses of worship, conduct family history and missionary and temple work, maintaining educational institutions, building and strengthening families and communities, providing extensive humanitarian and philanthropic assistance, and so on. The Church's finances are at the peak of their strength at a point in time when many other religious groups and institutions are faltering. All because of the combined faithfulness and efforts of the Latter-day Saints and their leaders. The Church faces some real difficulty in responsibly distributing more of its wealth (as Bishop Causse and others have emphasized is the intent of the Church). Recent news items have made clear the corruptions that permeate so much of the infrastructure for national and international humanitarian aid. I am very grateful that the Church is cautious and circumspect in vetting its partners in these endeavors. While this apparently creates something of a bottleneck, and while the Church can no doubt improve in how it approaches these matters, overall it is doing well in both plan and execution. Again, wow! I am grateful to be a part of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. First and foremost, I believe it is what it claims to be. Second, I believe its leaders are working hard to be in communion with the Lord's will. Third, the net effect of the Church is to improve the lives of those who accept its message, and to improve the lives of its neighbors everywhere. It is a wonderful institution!" YMMV. I think there are presuppositions at work here. My generalized perspective is that the Church - along with other high-net-worth groups and individuals - have more money to donate than reputable and effective and efficient conduits for that money to be utilized to benefit the family of man. Thanks, -Smac

This is particularly so given that the Office of the Presiding Bishop is, by scripture, charged with "administering all temporal things" (D&C 107:68). Managing the Church's money, or the oversight of managing it, sure seems pretty "temporal." See also here: This is the written "order of things." In 1996, Elder Packer gave a now well-known address: "The Unwritten Order of Things." In this BYU devotional address, Elder Packer emphasized that many Latter-day Saint protocols—seating, leadership deference, and administrative decorum—are often learned through observation rather than written in handbooks. It focuses on maintaining order, dignity, and spiritual focus in church administration. Elder Packer (!) was arguably the last of the Old School "doctrinaire" apostles. It it strains credulity that he would be ignorant of the responsibilities of the Presiding Bishop, or that he would seek to circumvent both the written and unwritten "order of things" by barging into EPA in the way the multiple-hearsay anecdote describes. Thanks, -Smac

Thank you for sharing this perspective. The Church originated in the U.S., but much of its mandate will be carried out in a world-wide way. My surmise is that the United States and Canada are by far the largest net contributors. A few other developed nations (such as the United Kingdom, Australia, and possibly New Zealand or Germany) are thought to be close to or at self-sufficiency, but exact figures are not public. The vast majority of countries and territories where the Church operates receive net subsidies from the central Church. Membership and activity figures in the U.S. and Canada seem to have slowed a lot, and over time may decline. If and when that happens, the financial condition of the Church may be adversely impacted in some big ways. I hope the Saints throughout the world are able to continue to pay tithing. I also trust that the Brethren can scale expenditures up and down as necessary to perpetuate its mandated responsibilities. Same here. Thanks, -Smac

Okay. Apart from Nielsen, do you have any evidence to support this suspicion? Could you clarify how that is a problem or concern? As to matters of governance, why is oversight by the First Presidency and the Presiding Bishopric insufficient? I do recall this 2019 Tribune article: So we have 1) the Tribune saying what 2) Nielsen said 3) Richard Willes said 4) Elder Packer and Bro. Clarke said. Triple or quadruple hearsay. And I could not immediately find the Nielsen complaint itself, so I can't say how Mr. Willes would have been sufficiently aware of the contents of the communication between Elder Packer and Bro. Clarke as to be able to quote Elder Packer verbatim. In speculating based on multiple hearsay? Hard to falsify or verify speculation. I think the "fixed principles" will remain in place. I sure hope so, as they have worked very well. Except it's not "Nielsen's account." It's hearsay. I still don't understand how this is a concern. The finances of the Church fall under the stewardship of the Presiding Bishopric. Those men, and those in the First Presidency, have plenary access. I assume the Church Auditing Department also has plenary access. Could you elaborate on the controversy? You seem to presuppose that the Q12 not having comparable access is some sort of scandalous or problematic thing. Do you also think the members of the Seventy should have plenary access? The General Officers? I'm sorry, but there seem to be some unstated presuppositions that either I do not know about or do not share. The Council on the Disposition of the Tithes seems to exercise stewardship over the funds which are allocated to fund the operations of the Church. Would you agree with that? The Council would also seem to be aware of, and on board with, a portion of tithes being sent to EPA for investment/reserve purposes. Is it your belief that the Council has particularized supervisory/oversight responsibilities pertaining to EPA and how it handles those funds? Okay. This helps. What is it about the Q12 that is dispositive relative to EPA being "integrated" or not? You seem to presuppose that the Q12 should have oversight responsibilities, and that the current levels of oversight are improper/scandalous. Is that accurate? If so, what is the nexus between A) Q12 access to EPA info and B) EPA being an "integrated auxiliary." Where did nexus come from? Who established it? When? Where? Thanks, -Smac

Thank you for explaining your perspective on things. I do not think this is an either/or situation. As I noted previously, I think the Parable has a lot to do with the concept of stewardship. The Lord gives us "talents" and expects us to use them in His service. In the present discussion, the Parable is strikingly both figurative and literal. The "Lord" has "servants" entrusted with money, and they are instructed and commanded to make good use of it. I am reminded of this 2017 article: Historian digs into the hidden world of Mormon finances, shows how church went from losing money to making money — lots of it Some excerpts: I think Quinn is slightly off in the tone of his comment, but he's substantively correct. I think Jacob 2 lays out the the guiding principles: I think there are times when the Lord ("the hand of providence") enables the Lord's covenant people to obtain "riches." Back then, there seemed to be numbers of Nephites who were so blessed, while others were not. But then things went sideways: Creating a class hierarchy is not what the Lord intended here. Jacob condemns this stratification and then explains what the proper purpose of riches is: I think the good numbers of the rank-and-file members of the Church have, for many years, have both worked to gain an education and skill sets allowing them to provide for themselves, and have also meaningfully observed the Law of Tithing. The Brethren, meanwhile, have for the last several decades stabilized and strengthened the Church's finances. They have done so through good stewardship. I can't help but notice that your comment, apparently intended to be scornful, actually parallels the Parable of the Talents: You: "Can you really imagine Jesus coming back and saying, 'You turned the widow's mite into a stock portfolio worth a trillion dollars! That's what I'm talking about! Well done, good and faithful servant!'" Matthew 25: To paraphrase your opening statement: Where you lose me is your belief that in this particular parable, money is a metaphor or simile conveying 'spiritual realities that finite human minds can grasp' and instead is not supposed to be taken literally. When it comes to the finances of the Church as administered by the Brethren, I think the Parable is intended to be both figurative and literal. I think the topic of the Brethren's stewardship of finances also needs to be viewed in context, taking into account important factors such as A) the principles enunciated in Jacob 2, B) the Brethren not enriching themselves, C) the objectively excellent manner in which the Church's finances have been handled for decades, D) and the challenges associated with administering large-scale humanitarian/philanthropic efforts. Back to the Trib article: If the Church had continued to founder in these "cycles of near bankruptcy," I am sure our critics would have a lot to negatively say about it. And yet now, decades into the Church having "found its economic footing," our critics still have a lot to negatively say about it. What Quinn describes as "an American success story without parallel" you describe as "unsustainable and foolish." I think this is a very important aspect of the Brethren's success with their stewardship. Quinn surveys the Brethren's stewardship and sees "'an enormously faith-promoting story'" that, if seen as part of the "'larger picture,'" would have the Latter-day Saints "'breath{ing} a sigh of relief and see the church is not a profit-making business.'" You survey the same topic and see the Brethren's actions as "unsustainable and foolish." Quinn describes a 50+ (now closer to 60+) year process whereby the Church went from "think{ing} it could {not} meet its payroll" to "'an enormously faith-promoting story'" that, if seen as part of the "'larger picture,'" would have the Latter-day Saints "'breath{ing} a sigh of relief and see the church is not a profit-making business.'" You survey the historical span and see the Brethren's actions as "unsustainable and foolish." Again, that the Brethren are not enriching themselves is a very important factor, IMO. I think you have materially misunderstood my view. I strongly disagree. They went to extreme lengths to hide this from the membership, the general public, and from the SEC. By "buried or hidden away" I was referring to the Parable, in which the third servant did nothing to invest and enlarge the talent he had been given, and instead literally "buried" and "hid" it in the earth. The Brethren have done more than just keep the Church operating within its means. They have prudently set aside a portion for investment and growth. This comes across as an ad hoc rationalization. Given our interactions over the years, I can appreciate how you view the Church and its leaders with some measures of jaundiced cynicism. If the Brethren were wasting money, or if they were investing the Church's money in risky or unwise or "vice" ventures, or if they were enriching themselves, then I could see more justification for your position. As it is, though, none of these things is happening. The Brethren have, for some decades now, become excellent stewards of the Church's finances. The two principal grievances you seem to hold are 1) the Church is not sufficiently "transparent" regarding the Church's finances, and 2) the Church does not spend enough of its funds on humanitarian/philanthropic efforts. Is this a fair restatement of your position? If so, I think there is some merit to both, but not enough for me to join you in your cynicism. Reasonable minds can disagree about such things. What is your basis for thinking this? Over the decades, I've heard repeatedly things like: ... According to Bednar and Hinckley, that is exactly the approach the Church takes--live on less than you take in, and save the rest for a rainy day. The Church has responsibilities that we as individuals don't have, and the duration of those responsibilities are not reflected in our individual lives. For me, I don't feel like I have a responsibility to provide financially for much of anything beyond me and my wife. My children are now adults and should not look to me to provide for them in any long-term sense. Their lives are their responsibilities. If I end up being able to leave them some inheritance, that would be nice. But it's not an obligation. In contrast, the Church has responsibilities for millions, and in some ways billions, of people. The programs and mandates of the Church need to be managed and funded in multi-generational ways that do not apply to us as individuals. The Church's stewardship is effectively perpetual, ours is not. The Church has stewardship over continuing the programs and mandates of the Church, we do not. This sounds like a post hoc rationalization. I'm okay with that. Habit Ten of the Hollis book: "Embrace the Discomfort of Non-Closure." We can proceed without having persuaded the other of our respective stances. Wise, Forward-Looking Stewardship I would say wise, forward-looking stewardship begins with having an internally coherent vision and goals for the organization. Okay. Do you think the Church is lacking in this regard? If so, could you elaborate? That is quite a reasonable point as an abstraction. I'm not sure what it would look like if attempted to put into practice. Perhaps you could provide some illustrations of such optimization? Also, is it possible that Joseph, while managing Egypt's foodstuffs during times of plenty, also encountered calls for "the reserves" to be "optimized, not maximized"? Put another way, can your worldview accommodate the possibility that the Brethren are aware of things of which you are not, and that these things may have an substantial impact on the "optimization" versus "maximization" thing you reference above? Do you think there are other principles also in play here? That is an interesting statement. Could you elaborate on how you propose to gauge what the Church "needs" to have in reserve? And does your calculus include developments with the Church ten years from now? Thirty? Fifty? Broadly speaking, the Church seems to be growing the fastest in areas of the world that tend to be poor, even impoverished. Quinn's last book was rather eye-opening for me, as it seemed to strongly indicate that the Church is subsidizing its presence in most of the world: "{T}he U.S.-born church is subsidizing its work {in other countries}."' "Quinn says {that} the source of those subsidies must be offerings from Americans and the businesses the faith owns." I struggle to square the foregoing with your "the church doesn't need very big reserves" commentary. This is very illuminating. That you for sharing. What "expenses" do you think would be cut? Missionary work? Temples? Humanitarian/philanthropic work? Education? Is it possible that the Brethren would not want to "cut expenses" as to its various mandates, particularly if they could avoid such cutting by maintaining substantial reserves? Could you elaborate? "Sufficient" for what? What metric are you using here? In 2010 "the {Church's operations in the} Philippines got $63.8 million — 85 percent of its revenue." What programs do you think the Church should cut in that country so that you would be satisfied? My parents served three missions: Samoa, Fabens (Texas) and Zimbabwe. None of these countries, I think, sustain themselves financially as to the Church's various programs, and almost certainly do not generate enough money to pay for international humanitarian/philanthropic efforts. I struggle to understand what you mean by "appropriately sized reserve fund." The Church is not profligate. The Brethren are not enriching themselves, and the Church's programs are designed to be financially constrained. I am glad of that. And if and when the Church finds ways to prudently distribute more of its funds, I will celebrated each such increase. Meanwhile, however, the Church is operating within its means, and it has wisely invested surplus funds so that it now has a substantial reserve. I am very grateful to the Brethren for these things. I wonder if the Church's current financial condition is a partial fulfillment of the prophecy in Malachi 3: The Lord could have just poured down gold coins on the roof of the Church Administration Building. Or He could command His children to tithe and donate in other ways (Malachi 3:10), which donations, when coupled with wise stewardship by His servants, (as mandated in Matthew 25), have yielded financial blessings to the Church as a whole. I like the second way better, as it allows each of us to contribute in whatever ways we can. There is a huge distance between committing fraud and being an example of best practices. I agree. I wonder, though, if we are situated to competently assess what the "best practices" of the Church are or should be, particularly given its particularized mandates. I think most observant Latter-day Saints are broadly supportive of the Brethren, and they have enough assurances to maintain that support. The Church will never be able to placate all its members, let alone its critics and detractors. I think there will never be a point at which the Church's critics would say "Yes, the Church is managing its finances well"? Instead, endless faultfinding and goalpost-moving and nebulous demands of "more" and "not that" will be the order of the day. I agree with all that. But you don't seem to give these things much credit or significance. Am I wrong about that? Again, given your perspective, I can appreciate how you could reach these conclusions. The Brethren sure seem to have a firm grasp on things. Elder - formerly Presiding Bishop - Causse is not in the Q12. He has spoken many times of working to expand the Church's humanitarian efforts. Not really the stuff we'd expect to see of a group who are "old, scared, lack vision, and are paralyzed by group think and tradition." For me, I think the Brethren are doing an excellent job of managing the Church's finances. I do not resent or object to the Law of Tithing. I think it is ennobling. I think consecrating a tithe it is as important to discipleship as it is to consecrate work and time and effort. Three reasons. First, I just want to keep the record straight on what happened and how people's beliefs evolve over time. Right. But why this topic in particular? Okay. Could you elaborate on this? My sense is that there really aren't very many Latter-day Saints who cared back then or care now. And of those who did care, many not only do not feel "betrayed," they feel vindicated by the outcome of the tithing lawsuits, in which the Church was exonerated of accusations of misconduct. More broadly, the Latter-day Saints who are really paying attention to the Church's finances are coming to the conclusion that Quinn suggested back in 2017: At the same time, I think plenty of Latter-day Saints do not want their faith publicly disparaged and insulted, things they hold sacred profaned, their intelligence and character disputed, their leaders ridiculed and insulted, and so on. Do you likewise have "empathy" for those feelings of consternation and frustration? I really don't think so. I think Huntsman, along with most of us, never had any substantial misunderstanding or misapprehension about City Creek. I think Huntsman's lawsuit was pretextual. To be sure, there are some Latter-day Saints who objected to City Creek. But the Brethren cannot take a "We'll only do things that will nobody anywhere will find objectionable in any way" sort of approach to the Church's finances. The Parable of the Talents warns against that. I don't know what you mean by "seems like an attempt to gaslight." If anything, this thread - and the various other threads pertaining to City Creek and the tithing lawsuits - have illuminating what appears to be mostly disagreements based on splitting hairs, differences of opinions and value judgments, and presuppositions about the Church generally. You are making this up as a post-hoc rationalization. I don't think so. If it was factually inaccurate, I think you would be able to pick it apart. I think there's quite a bit more to EPA than that. I don't think any of this is incompatible with what I have said. If the Church has broken the law, then it should be held to account. That is not what has happened, though. This conversation isn't about legal v. illegal, but is instead about highly subjective value judgments about what the Church should do with enormous sums of money. We can and should have these conversations, but I think they were more effective without the disparagements and vitriol. Thank you for explaining your view so clearly. I appreciate you taking the time to share it. I respectfully disagree with the assertion that the reserve fund “is not used to help fund the Church’s religious, educational, and humanitarian mission” and that its “sole purpose is for unspent tithing to be saved.” Presiding Bishop Christopher Waddell addressed this directly in the 2023 60 Minutes interview when he said: That statement makes clear that the reserves are being used to support the Church’s core mission — temples, meetinghouses, missionary work, education, welfare programs, and disaster relief. The idea that EPA’s sole purpose is simply to warehouse unspent tithing appears to rest almost entirely on David Nielsen’s interpretation of the internal accounting. While Nielsen is certainly entitled to his perspective, the Church’s own leaders have consistently described the reserves as a prudent reserve designed to provide long-term stability and the ability to continue the Church’s work even in difficult or disruptive times. Managing those funds wisely allows the Church to plan clearly for both present and future needs rather than living hand-to-mouth. I agree that reasonable people can disagree about the ideal size of such a reserve or how transparent the reporting should be. But the claim that the reserves have no connection to funding the Church’s mission doesn’t align with the statements from Church leaders or how the funds are actually deployed. Thanks, -Smac

I forgot to address these two questions. On money coming out on those two occasions, they are "the exceptions that prove the rule." The money that came out was ultimately for commercial purposes, not charitable. That distinction allegedly matters when evaluating whether or not EPA is a charity. Personally I get less worked up about that then other people might--I think the Church had a moral obligation to bail out Beneficial Life, and I think investing in Salt Lake City's downtown is a better use of resources than capitalizing Bank of America, United Healthcare, and Meta. Regarding Bishop Waddells' answers, I'd ask a ton of followup questions on this. The big one is whether or not the apostles are permitted to see Ensign Peak's investment earnings. We know the apostles are allowed to see tithing donations, but are they allowed to see the Church's total earnings? I'm quite sure they are not. If I'm right, that indicates it really isn't that integrated. Assuming followup questions for Bishop Waddell are not available (as a practical matter, as he likely does not visit this board), could you explain your assessment of Bishop Waddell's statement here: "In any given month you may have an average of nine transfers going from Ensign Peak back to the church to fund all church operations. All humanitarian work— education work, all the work of the church they fund." Do you think he was telling the truth, or not? EPA was organized in, I think, 1995 or 1997. Bishop Waddell was speaking in 2023. I would think he was speaking of the status quo in 2023, rather than providing a long retrospective accounting for the last 28 or so years. In any event, it seems like we can only gauge Bishop Waddell's comments based on the information we have. Do we have more evidence than just Neilsen? I don't understand what you mean by "more integrated than it really is." Are you suggesting that EPA is autonomous? I understand the concern, I think. I surmise that EPA operates with a high degree of professional autonomy in its day-to-day investment decisions (its job is, after all, to make wise investments, within parameters set by the Brethren as indicated by the absence of "vice" stocks), which can make it feel less “integrated” with the Church than, say, a local ward or a Church-owned university. However, per the IRS: As I understand it, EPA was created and exists solely to manage the Church’s prudent reserve in order to support its core mission (temples, meetinghouses, humanitarian aid, education, missionary work, etc.). Ultimate oversight rests with the Presiding Bishopric and the First Presidency (notably, the Q12 apparently does not have oversight responsibilities). The fact that it employs professional investment staff and uses sophisticated vehicles is not unusual — many large churches and religious organizations have similarly structured investment arms. The IRS has long accepted this structure and has never challenged EPA’s status as an integrated auxiliary, even after public scrutiny in 2019 and 2023. That’s a strong indicator that it meets the legal standard, even if the arrangement looks different from a small local auxiliary. I agree that reasonable people can debate where the line should be drawn between a church’s religious activities and its financial stewardship. But the legal test for “integrated auxiliary” has never required the kind of micro-management that would make EPA look like a typical congregational program. So could you elaborate? To what extent and in what ways is EPA not, in your view, sufficiently "integrated"? Thanks, -Smac

I would agree with that. Would you also agree that the Parable also pertains to matters of stewardship? Yes, of course. But the master in the parable was a materialistic, worldly man whose goal was to have more money. The master is also intended to represent Jesus Christ, would you agree with that? I think it can be jarring for metaphors to have potentially incongruent implications. Hence the "master" in the Parable of the Talents might be seen as avaricious. The servant views the master as "hard" or harsh, leading to inaction. I see this as the servant’s unrighteous judgment of God’s character. He projects fear and hardness onto the Lord, leading to slothfulness and inaction. The master repeats the servant’s own words back to him not to endorse that flawed view of Himself as harsh or exploitative, but to condemn the servant by his own logic: “If you knew I was so demanding, why didn’t you at least do the safe, minimal thing to produce some return?” This exposes the excuse as invalid—fear-based misunderstanding of God does not justify burying one’s gifts. As this Ensign article explains, the third servant’s false perception of the master stifled his own growth and caused him to miss the master’s mercy and grace; his unrighteous judgment of God led to poor self-judgment and lost opportunities. Biblical metaphors and similes describing God (or Christ) often use vivid, earthly imagery to convey spiritual realities that finite human minds can grasp. Just as “as a thief in the night” (1 Thessalonians 5:2; 2 Peter 3:10) emphasizes the sudden, unexpected nature of the Lord’s return—catching the unprepared off guard, not implying criminality or stealthy wrongdoing—other metaphors can be misread literally as attributing negative human flaws (harshness, pettiness, cruelty, or arbitrariness) to God if taken out of context. Latter-day Saint teachings, like the interpretation of the Parable of the Talents, consistently stress that such language reveals God’s perfect character (love, holiness, justice, zeal, and sovereignty) rather than imputing ill will; any “negative” perception usually stems from the observer’s flawed perspective or incomplete understanding, not from God Himself. Other examples: "Jealous God” (Exodus 20:5; 34:14; Deuteronomy 4:24; 5:9; 6:15). “Consuming fire” or “devouring fire” (Deuteronomy 4:24; 9:3; Hebrews 12:29; also Malachi 3:2 as “refiner’s fire”). God as a lion, leopard, or bereaved bear (Hosea 5:14; 13:7–8; also Amos 3:8). “The Lord is a man of war” (Exodus 15:3; also Psalm 24:8; Isaiah 42:13). And so on. In each case, the metaphor serves to convey profound truths about God’s nature (holiness, zeal, justice, sovereignty) in language humans can relate to, while the broader scriptural witness and modern revelation (e.g., Doctrine and Covenants emphasis on God’s love and mercy) guard against misreading these as flaws. As with the Parable of the Talents, the danger lies in projecting imperfect human motives onto God rather than trusting His perfect character and responding with faith, diligence, and reverence. Latter-day Saint leaders encourage studying these images prayerfully to deepen appreciation for God’s goodness, not to fear a capricious deity. Going back to the Parable of the Talents, I think your point about the purpose of the parable ("the importance of using talents (skills, money, time) to serve God") and mine ("stewardship") go hand in hand. I appreciate you being direct about this and continuing the conversation. I can see why the Church’s reserve fund strikes you as, in your previous words, going "waaaayyyy beyond 'prudent'" and into "hoarding." That’s an understandable reaction when the numbers are large, and it’s a question worth wrestling with honestly. At the same time, I think the Parable of the Talents actually pushes us in a different direction. The master doesn’t condemn the first two servants for ending up with significantly more than they started with. He praises them precisely because they actively put their talents to work and multiplied them through diligent effort. The one he calls “wicked and slothful” is the servant who simply buried his talent—keeping it completely inactive and unproductive. The master even points out that the bare minimum would have been to put the money with the exchangers to earn some increase. In the parable’s own logic, faithful stewardship means productive multiplication in service to the master’s objectives, not passive "hoarding." From what I’ve seen, the Church’s approach aligns far more with the first two servants than the third. The reserve isn’t being buried or hidden away; it’s being carefully invested and multiplied so the Church can sustain and expand what we believe are the Lord’s priorities on a global, multi-generational scale—building temples at a pace never seen before, providing humanitarian aid and disaster relief in over 200 countries, supporting education, strengthening families, and preparing for future growth or hard times. I also can't help but think that the Church's planning is qualitatively different from any of us as private individuals. Most of us think about, at most, our future selves and our children, and perhaps our grandchildren. We hope to provide for ourselves, and then maybe leave something for our kids and grandkids. But that's about as far as our perspective goes. The Church, I think, is attempting to anticipate circumstances involving both a lot more time and a lot more people. Joseph in Egypt is today lauded for insisting that Egypt save during the seven years of "plenty," but I suspect he had detractors who did not have the foresight Joseph and God had regarding the coming seven years of famine. Moreover, I have previously written at some length about how the Church having huge financial reserves is a fairly recent phenomenon (just in the last few decades), and also that distribution/funding of humanitarian and philanthropic and religious efforts on the scale at which the Church is operating (internationally, with huge amounts of money potentially in play, with dozens/hundreds of "partners" and governments and such with whom the Church must cooperate) requires huge measures of due diligence and vetting. This is particularly so given recent discoveries of widespread graft and corruption in NGOs and nonprofits which purport to be trying to do good things, but which are squandering and wasting and stealing a lot. Put another way, I wonder if the Church - like many other wealthy individuals and organizations - struggle with finding worthwhile and reputable partners with whom they can work to put money and resources and such to good and productive use. I’m genuinely interested in your perspective on this. What do you see as the practical difference between wise, forward-looking stewardship (especially for an organization responsible for millions of members worldwide) and the kind of "hoarding" you’re describing? Where would you draw the line? I’m always trying to think more carefully about these things, and I value hearing where my own view might need sharpening. Not quite. My point was that fretting over whether a specific dollar on the balance sheet is tied to specific dollars on the income statement is what's silly. Okay. It's a legitimate, or at least sensible, policy choice to say that the Church wants to limit its annual spending to about 85%-90% of its annual tithing revenue. Given that conservatively, the Church's investment income revenue is double its tithing revenue, this leads to a situation where perhaps 70% of total revenue goes to increasing the size of the reserve fund, and the remaining 30% goes to religious and charitable endeavors. If deploying resources that way aligns with the Church's values, then sure; that is sensible. Okay. Okay, I think that helps. What may be important to some may seem "silly" to others. That's fair. Here is the part of Paul Rytting's declaration that is most relevant. Read this, I pray thee. I cannot, for it is redacted. I The redacted parts of Rytting's declaration might settle the issue one way or the other, but I don't know what it says. but I'm confident Nielsen is right. Okay. I am hoping to understand the evidentiary basis for your certitude. Okay. But if all of this is coming down to "semantics" and "silly," why does this topic seem to be such a bone of contention? You don't think the Church lied. The Ninth Circuit agrees with you. The Tenth Circuit and the U.S. District Court did not "reach" the issue of false statements. So after lots of spilled ink and legal fees and online discussions, where do you think we end up? Are we still where have have been for years? You think the Church should spend down more of its invested reserves, as the Brethren are currently - in your view - "hoarding" money. I think the Church's finances are, after 150+ years, finally stabilized and well in hand, perhaps in perpetuity. This is, in my view, a paradigmatic departure from where we as an institution have been. It is also a paradigmatic departure from where most of use are or ever will be. My financial decisions contemplate the next 30+ years, and end with my children (or, perhaps, my grandchildren). The Church is managing many billions of dollars, mostly acquired relatively recently. The Church has what could be called fiduciary obligations, and also substantial practical and logistical constraints on how much money it can reasonably and responsibly and effectively distribute. The Brethren, who are charged with these heavy responsibilities, are not enriching themselves, and they are educated and experienced men, and they are good and decent men. They are not avaricious, and I don't think they are irrationally holding on to money for the sake of holding on to money. Hinckley made the assurances, the courts determined that definition #2 of "using tithing" is the proper definition when interpreting his remarks. I have no problem with that, and would have and basically did argue that this was the case all along. But a lot of members misunderstood him. With transparency, this misunderstanding could have been avoidable. But the lack of transparency doesn't imply fraud. Okay. Assuming, arguendo, that a lot of members did indeed misunderstand Pres. Hinckley as regarding the funding of City Creek, could you elaborate on why that is such an important issue for you? Okay. So where does that put us? Has all this just been a combination of (A) the Church has been exonerated regarding the allegations of fraud in the tithing lawsuits, and (B) the arguments about EPA are an a protracted and ongoing "woulda coulda shoulda" sort of thing, where reasonable minds can disagree about what the Church should do with its money? Yes. We are a society governed by laws, and the Church appears to be operating within the confines of those laws. Would you agree with that? Okay. Are you suggesting that EPA not paying more taxes amounts to a burden the "hard-working population of people, many of whom can't afford healthcare"? If the EPA were paying more taxes, would that improve the ability of hard-working Americans to afford healthcare? I'm not quite sure I see the nexus between the two items. EPA is not a for-profit hedge fund operating for private gain (I say this because you have, over the years, repeatedly characterized EPA as a hedge fund). It is, instead, an integrated auxiliary of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, organized under long-standing U.S. tax law (Internal Revenue Code § 501(c)(3) and related provisions governing churches and their supporting organizations). Its sole purpose is to manage reserves that help fund the Church’s religious, educational, and humanitarian mission—temples, meetinghouses, welfare programs, disaster relief, and missionary work. Like every other tax-exempt religious organization in America (Catholic dioceses, Protestant denominations, Jewish federations, etc.), its investment earnings are not subject to income tax precisely because they support exempt purposes. You are right that any large, successful institution benefits from the stability and rule of law our society provides. That’s true of universities with billion-dollar endowments, hospitals, and every other 501(c)(3) organization. The policy question is whether we want to single out religious organizations for special taxation while leaving their secular counterparts untouched. Historically, the United States has chosen not to do that, in large part because of First Amendment protections and the recognition that churches provide enormous voluntary social services that reduce the burden on government. As for the future: if Congress decides to overhaul the tax code and repeal or narrow the tax-exempt status of churches and their auxiliaries, that change would apply across the board—not just to the Church. EPA’s “free ride” is the same ride every other religious body in America has been given for more than a century. The real debate is whether that historic policy should be changed, and if so, what the consequences would be for the millions of Americans who rely on the charitable, educational, and humanitarian work those organizations perform. I assume you would want this legislative change to apply to all churches and 501(c)(3) and such. Is that accurate? Yes. Reducing spending and waste and graft and corruption would also help a lot. I assume the Church and EPA would be subject to the same laws as apply to everyone else. It appears that the IRS is not showing any favoritism to the Church or to EPA, but I don't think it or Congress would exempt them from such an overhaul. Do you concur? Thanks, -Smac

I would agree with that. Would you also agree that the Parable also pertains to matters of stewardship? Yes, I understand your perspective. In many ways, I think our prior conversations about this have touched on Habit Five of the Hollis book: "Hunt for the Best Argument Against You." That is, I think, what you provide. I think we vary in both our respective presuppositions and our ultimate conclusions and value judgments, and I am okay with that. Having previously argued about these matters extensively, I will here deploy Habit Ten: "Embrace the Discomfort of Non-Closure." The second item here is not in dispute, but the first one appears to be. I previously inquired about evidence to rebut the statement that "{t}he vast majority of these funds {tithes and donations received from members} are used immediately to meet the needs of the growing Church." I'm content to leave this unanswered. You said the whole question of tithing vs. investment earnings is “silly” because money is completely fungible and there are multiple ways to rationalize any expense. While dollars are fungible in the sense that any one can be spent anywhere, nonprofits and churches routinely differentiate funds by source and purpose — through fund accounting, board-designated reserves, donor restrictions, and fiduciary obligations. Could you explain why the Church’s long-standing public distinction (vast majority of tithing used immediately for core programs, with only a portion methodically set aside as a “prudent reserve” for investment) is meaningless or silly, rather than a legitimate, transparent policy choice? Also, even though money is fungible once received, organizations (especially tax-exempt nonprofits) are required to track and report funds according to their source and intended use — for legal compliance, donor trust, tax purposes, and stewardship. The Church’s First Presidency has repeatedly made exactly that distinction in official statements. If fungibility makes every such distinction irrelevant, wouldn’t that logic apply to any nonprofit that maintains operating reserves, endowments, or restricted funds? Or do you see a meaningful difference in the Church’s case? Yes, that's fair. I have a couple of reasons for believing this is true. First, David Nielsen said it is true in his report. Okay. What are your thoughts about the affidavits submitted by the Church? Do you regard them as credible? Apart from Nielsen's affidavit, are you aware of any evidence to suggest that this is the way the Church actually did "do it" this way? I would like to better understand what you are saying here. As I understand it, in behavioral economics, “mental accounting” usually refers to an individual bias where people irrationally value money differently based on its source (e.g., treating a tax refund like “free money”). But in organizational accounting — especially for churches and nonprofits — segregating funds by source and purpose would seem to be standard and required practice, not "bias." This is how, for example, boards fulfill their fiduciary duties and honor donor intent. Am I correct in thinking that you see the Church’s public statements about tithing and reserves as falling into that individual cognitive-bias category, rather than as a deliberate accounting and communications policy? Also, given that the Church has consistently told members for decades that tithing is used first and foremost for religious programs (with only a prudent portion going into invested reserves), isn’t applying different rationalizations for different categories of spending actually the expected and transparent approach, rather than inconsistency? The 2025 Ninth Circuit en banc decision in Huntsman (11-0) seems to have reviewed the exact same facts and fungibility arguments you’re making. The court still held that no reasonable person could find the Church misrepresented the source of funds for City Creek, because it had always said it would use earnings on invested reserves (not principal tithing) for such projects. If fungibility makes the entire distinction “silly,” why do you think the unanimous court treated the Church’s source-of-funds explanation as meaningful and non-misleading instead of dismissing it the way you have? You have concluded that the question is silly because one could rationalize any spending either way. But the Church has never claimed all spending comes from investment earnings — it has repeatedly said the opposite: the vast majority of tithing is spent immediately on the Church’s mission. If that is the case, what would a non-silly version of this distinction look like to you? For example, if the Church maintained formal internal categories for immediate-use tithing versus the invested reserve (exactly as its public statements describe), would that change your view, or does fungibility render even that irrelevant? This particular detail has nothing to do with Nielsen's argument. Nielsen's argument is, as I recall, that EPA doesn't qualify as a public charity because it never actually uses any of its resources for anything charitable. Therefore the IRS should classify it as a private foundation rather than a public charity and tax it as such. The Church argues that since it is an integrated auxiliary of the Church, whether or not it is doing anything charitable needs to be evaluated by looking at the Church as a whole and not looking at EPA in a silo. Nielsen counters that it can't be an integrated auxiliary unless it is already a public charity and since it isn't a public charity it can't be an integrated auxiliary. I think this is clearly a unique situation that wasn't anticipated when the laws were written. I've seen companies request Private Letter Rulings from the IRS for issues that were much, much smaller than this one. “The fundamental claim to me is that Ensign Peak brings money in, and it’s the Hotel California. It never comes out,” Professor Phil Hackney told 60 Minutes. He said the claims about the Mormon church’s investment fund are complex and in a gray area." Interesting stuff, this. You noted Nielsen’s argument creates a circularity: EPA can’t be an integrated auxiliary unless it’s already a public charity, but Nielsen says it isn’t a public charity because it makes no direct charitable distributions. The Church’s position is that EPA is evaluated as part of the integrated Church as a whole. Do you see any support in the IRS regulations or case law for the Church’s holistic view (i.e., that an auxiliary’s charitable purpose can be satisfied by supporting the parent church’s exempt purposes rather than making standalone distributions)? Also, Professor Hackney’s “Hotel California” line is colorful, but how does it's "{money} never comes out" claim work in light of, for example, EPA funds having been used for City Creek and Beneficial Life? Also, what are your thoughts about Bishop Waddells' 2023 remarks to 60 Minutes (the same piece in which Phil Hackney weighed in)? "In any given month you may have an average of nine transfers going from Ensign Peak back to the church to fund all church operations. All humanitarian work— education work, all the work of the church they fund." The Church's position is that EPA is an integrated auxiliary of the Church as a whole — so its charitable purpose is fulfilled by supporting the parent organization’s mission, not by making standalone distributions like a typical foundation. In Nielsen’s view (as stated directly in the 60 Minutes interview and his original IRS whistleblower complaint), the routine cash/Treasury-account transfers (the “average of nine transfers per month” Bishop Waddell described) do not count as meaningful use of Ensign Peak’s funds for charitable or exempt purposes. Put another way, until and unless the Church is selling down the invested assets in that main portfolio and transferring those proceeds to support church operations, humanitarian work, etc., Nielsen argues it doesn’t satisfy the requirements for a public charity or integrated auxiliary. In his eyes, simply moving money around in the checking-account side while the retirement-account side keeps growing indefinitely doesn’t count. Nielsen’s criticism is substantive (it raises a real, non-frivolous interpretive question under IRS rules), but it is fundamentally a disagreement about degree and policy interpretation, not a clear-cut, black-or-white violation of the law. As I understand it, the law does not impose a bright-line spending requirement on EPA the way it does on private foundations (which must distribute ~5% of assets annually). Public charities and integrated auxiliaries of churches get much broader latitude: Churches and their integrated auxiliaries are automatically treated as public charities and are exempt from many normal filing and oversight rules. There is no IRS rule that says “you must spend X% of your portfolio each year or lose exempt status.” The IRS has long allowed religious organizations to maintain large endowments/reserves that are invested for future needs (this is the Church’s exact “prudent reserve” theory, drawing on the parable of the talents). In other words, the law leaves room for judgment about how much use is enough to satisfy “operated exclusively for” the church. Nielsen is arguing for a stricter, more aggressive interpretation — essentially “if you’re not regularly selling down the principal and spending it, it doesn’t count.” The Church and its defenders say the reserves exist precisely to be available when needed, and the regular cash-account transfers plus occasional large draws (City Creek earnings, Beneficial Life, operational funding) are sufficient. Nielsen is not just making a subjective “they should spend more” complaint. He is pointing to a genuine tension in how the operational test applies to a massive, perpetually growing reserve. That part is substantive. But his view is not compelled by the black letter of the law. It is one reasonable interpretation among others, and the IRS’s long silence (6.5 years with no action on his complaint) suggests the agency does not see a clear, enforceable violation. Interesting stuff, to be sure. I think most Latter-day Saints are A) generally unaware of and indifferent to the particulars of the Church's large-scale financial management efforts, and B) generally feel that the Church is doing a good job with its finances (no systemic problems/scandals, the Brethren are not living profligate lives, there is a lot of "visible" stuff to see from the Church's efforts, etc.). Thanks, -Smac

Thank you for clarifying this. Could you elaborate? From the Church in 2019: If you have contrary evidence (to rebut the statement that "{t}he vast majority of these funds {tithes and donations received from members} are used immediately to meet the needs of the growing Church"), could you provide some references for me to review? Okay. Do you have any evidence to substantiate that this is what is happening? I am not sure I understand what you are saying here. Are saying this latter idea ("of the Church running 100% of its operations off of investment earnings and using 100% of tithing to increase the size of the reserve fund") is what is actually happening? I'd be willing to hear the Church’s side of the story if it wanted to dispute this particular allegation, but personally I’m fairly confident it is true--that is the way I’d expect a professional treasurer to do it. In the law, there is a concept called a "prima facie case," that is, that a party has presented a legal claim that is supported by sufficient, initial evidence, making it appear valid "at first sight" or "on its face". It establishes a rebuttable presumption of truth, meaning the case will proceed or succeed unless the opposing party introduces evidence to refute or contradict it. You seem to be suggesting that Nielsen has made a "prima face case" that "the specific funds that were used to pay for the mall were pulled out of EPA before they earned any interest." Is that a fair characterization of your position? If so, could you elaborate on how you reached that conclusion? It has been quite a while since we discussed the "whistleblower" matter. Mr. Nielsen filed his complaint in 2019. Is it your understanding that his complaint is still pending or otherwise "open" with the IRS? I have no understanding of this, but would speculate that it is in a perpetual status of being “received but not investigated.” Assuming your speculation is accurate, do you think Nielsen's argument re: EPA is factually and legally correct? If so, why do you think the IRS has not done anything with this complaint? I appreciate your input. While we seldom agree on ultimate issues pertaining to the Church, I have found much value in listening to your perspective over the years. Thanks, -Smac

It has been quite a while since we discussed the "whistleblower" matter. Mr. Nielsen filed his complaint in 2019. Is it your understanding that his complaint is still pending or otherwise "open" with the IRS? Even if the Church and EPA are all legally one organization, how do you see the distinction (or lack of one) between tithing dollars and other sources of income? Tithing is tax-free and the bulk of it is used to fund the Church's religious purposes, and a portion of tithes is sent to EPA for investment purposes, and still other funds can come from for-profit sources, and therefore can be taxable. Do you think that difference still matter when we’re talking about how funds flow internally? This is interesting. One piece I am trying to square is the Ninth Circuit’s handling of it in the Huntsman case. The initial 2023 panel decision seemed to agree with you that the definition of “tithing funds” (principal vs. earnings) was ambiguous enough for a jury. But the full en banc court in 2025 unanimously ruled the other way, saying no reasonable person could conclude the Church misrepresented the source once you factor in their clarification about using earnings on invested reserves. I would like to better understand how you weigh those two rulings. Does the whistleblower’s accounting of the specific account outweigh the en banc court’s conclusion, in your view? Or is there a different reason you see Definition 1 as the right lens here, even after the final decision? Also, do you think there is strong factual evidence that Nielsen's allegations ("the specific funds that were used to pay for the mall were pulled out of EPA before they earned any interest") have been established? It has been quite a while since we discussed the "whistleblower" matter. Mr. Nielsen filed his complaint in 2019. Is it your understanding that his complaint is still pending or otherwise "open" with the IRS? Thanks, -Smac

You previously asked me: Also you (from 2024) : Tithing donations were in fact indirectly used, as Craig Paxton said. Saying “it’s all tithing” is a straw man that has nothing to do with what was then said or with my point now. And here: Using tithing to generate investment income which is then used to build a mall is indirectly using tithing to build a mall. Nobody is changing the definition of “tithing.” Rather, we acknowledge that indirectly using things is still using them. ... If “interest on unspent tithing” was how the mall was funded, then tithing money was in fact used indirectly. And here: “Indirect” has everything to do with it because it is something we’ve been discussing on this board for about 12 years now. Based on the responses of faithful Saints to these topics, a plurality of Latter-day Saints thought when Hinckley said “no tithing would be used” he meant no tithing would be used directly, and no tithing would be used indirectly. And here: And here: Hammers are one of many tools used to make houses. Houses are used for shelter. Are hammers one of many tools used to indirectly make shelter? Yes. Of course. And here: And here (this is me responding to you) : You are the one advancing it. You've said things like this: "Nobody is changing the definition of 'tithing.' Rather, we acknowledge that indirectly using things is still using them." You've taken ownership of this pig-in-a-poke idea. "We acknowledge..." You responded: From a certain point of view, this is true. But acknowledging that the people I’m quoting are saying things that are logically coherent doesn’t make the idea mine. And here: And here: It seems like even if you disclaim originating the "indirect tithing" concept, you have advanced it and ratified it over and over. Okay. I appreciate the clarification. I am struggling to reconcile it with your various prior statements, some of which are quoted above, which appear to specifically ratify and endorse this distinction: "Tithing donations were in fact indirectly used, as Craig Paxton said." "Using tithing to generate investment income which is then used to build a mall is indirectly using tithing to build a mall." "{W}e acknowledge that indirectly using things is still using them." "If 'interest on unspent tithing' was how the mall was funded, then tithing money was in fact used indirectly." "Are hammers one of many tools used to indirectly make shelter? Yes. Of course." "After all, if you believe in logic then logically, indirectly using something is still using it." "{L}ogically, using tithing income to generate investment income to buy a mall is indirectly using tithing to buy a mall. That is logical..." "From a certain point of view, this {'we acknowledge that indirectly using things is still using them'} is true." "Yes, in an indirect way the City Creek mall was made possible by sacred tithing money." "Logically, using interest earned on unspent tithing to fund the mall would be using tithing to fund the mall; indirectly using something is still using it." Could you clarify what your perspective is? Are you saying that the direct/indirect distinction is "silly"? It seems like you have been advancing arguments, for some years now, which presuppose that the direct/indirect differentiation is, in your words, "fact," something "we acknowledge," axiomatic ("of course"), and so on. Could you help me understand how your perspective is not relevant to your arguments? Thanks, -Smac

That is a frustration, to be sure. So have mine. We have more information now than we did in 2012. Substantively, though, my understanding has not really changed: The Church invests a percentage of tithing revenue. I have know about this for a long time. I have no objection to it. In fact, I think wise stewardship - mandated in the Parable of the Talents - would effectively require the Brethren to manage the finances of the Church as they have been. It was not until N. Eldon Tanner came on board in the 60s that the leadership of the Church stabilized - hopefully permanently - the finances of the Church. No tithes were used to fund City Creek. I think there was barely a colorable legal claim, but it did not withstand judicial scrutiny. And given the factual allegations in the tithing lawsuits, I think that scrutiny was barred by the Church Autonomy Doctrine. "Tithes" are monies voluntarily contributed by the Saints and earnings/interest on invested tithes are not tithes. This is effectively axiomatic. It is only a point worth mentioning here because Huntsman et al. presented a contrary notion (pretextually, IMO) to the Courts. It didn't work. Frankly, I think most Latter-day Saints have given little to no thought to any of these points. I have, but that's because I am an attorney, and because I regularly interact with critics of the Church who are prone to raise critiques associated with these issues. That makes sense, particularly when the topic is framed in sensationalistic terms, as some critics are prone to do. It takes some time and study and effort to find that the reality does not really match up to the sensationism. Same here. Candidly, I have a hard time crediting Huntsman with a good faith belief that Pres. Hinckley made fraudulent statements to the Church. Not only would that have been quite out of character for both the man and his calling, it also makes no sense in and of itself. Why would Pres. Hinckley publish a lie that could be rather easily detected? Why would Pres. Hinckley lie about the Church not using tithes when the contrary proposition would have been entirely legal and feasible? I agree that it can be a sort of cop-out or cheap shot when deployed against others, which is why A) I applied it to myself only, and B) queried Analytics as to his self-assessment ("I am curious about what @Analytics feels his 'accurate beliefs' and 'desired conclusions' have been regarding the Church and City Creek...") rather than impose my own assessment onto him. Yes. I think the challenge is for us to use reasoning to pursue "accurate beliefs" rather than a particularized set of "desired conclusions." I love the Church and believe it is what it claims to be, but I don't do myself or anyone else any favors by viewing it through rose-colored glasses. No need, mostly, as I think the Church's conduct is overwhelmingly good and appropriate. I agree. I apologize, both to you and @Analytics, if I gave the impression I was doing that. I intended to elicit his own assessment of his "motivated reasoning." Thanks, -Smac

Agreed. It's definitely something both of our perspectives and beliefs are susceptible to. Bias is a very real thing. From the link: I think most of us would like to say we are striving for "accurate beliefs," but sometimes we may actually be pursuing "desired conclusions." Hence the value of this message board. Folks like @Analytics have perspectives on the Restored Gospel that, in many respects, substantially diverge from my own. If I was interested in only "arriv{ing} at desired conclusions," I would go find an echo chamber. Instead, I come here to test and vet my beliefs about the Restored Gospel by listening to what its critics have to say. Sometimes they have valid observations, but mostly I think their commentary is more about fundamental - and not empirically testable - presuppositions than about the "facts." For my part, I have no particular or vested interest in what a handful of Latter-day Saints thought about City Creek in 2012. As it is, I think most (nearly all?) of them - and most informed Latter-day Saints today - had and have a pretty accurate understanding of things, including that the Church invests a percentage of tithing revenue, the Church has publicly disclosed the previous point for quite a while (since at least 1991), no tithes were used to fund City Creek, "tithes" are monies voluntarily contributed by the Saints, earnings/interest on invested tithes are not tithes, and they disagree with the notion/characterization that "indirectly using tithing money is still using tithing money" and/or “{i}nterest on tithing money is still tithing money" (this concept is, I think, the sine qua non of the tithing lawsuits), investing a portion of tithes is morally wrong/improper, Pres. Hinckley and other leaders of the Church were "disingenuous" and/or engaged in "money laundering" relative to City Creek, the leaders of the Church have, for many decades now, been excellent stewards of the Church's finances, and the leaders of the Church are not living profligate lifestyles or otherwise squandering/misusing Church funds to enrich or unduly benefit themselves. This thread, and others about the "tithing" lawsuits, have for some had a sort of "Mirror of Erised"-style effect on some participants. While my "desired conclusions" would have been for the Church to be exonerated of the accusations of fraud and misconduct, I would also want to have "accurate beliefs" about the Church's conduct relative to City Creek. If the Church has done something wrong, I think it needs to be held accountable. Consequently, in these threads I have found some value in examining the lawsuits which have sought to apply neutral principles of law. As it happens, the Church has been altogether vindicated, such that "accurate beliefs" and "desired conclusions" overlap almost perfectly. I am curious about what @Analytics feels his "accurate beliefs" and "desired conclusions" have been regarding the Church and City Creek, both before and during and after the adjudication of the tithing lawsuits. Roger? Thanks, -Smac