17 Bonneville Radio Stations to Sell for $500 Million

[Analytics]

The auditors that audit the Church clearly state that the expenditures of tithing and other free-will offerings are in accordance with established Church policy.

The auditors that audit the Church clearly state that the expenditures of tithing and other free-will offerings are in accordance with established Church policy.

What are those policies, specifically? Are you suggesting that there is a Church policy that explicitly forbids it from investing in Deseret Management Corp, Property Reserve, and other for-profit businesses that it owns?

I recall several years ago President Hinckley had a relatively open talk about the Church

[Nofear]

I do agree that cash for City Creek is probably the motivation for selling the radio stations. My point is simply that if the church were having a

[Analytics]

As you note, the Church doesn't immediately spend every tithing cent it receives and so it must store the money somewhere....

It doesn't just store the money. It has invested it in a way that has grown into a multi-billion dollar corporate empire.

The Church doesn't say where and like you can only speculate.

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism article that was linked in the post you cited said the following:

Historically, two purposes have characterized Church participation in business: to provide important services to the community that might not otherwise be available, and to provide a reasonable return on the resources of the Church.

Given that the expenditure of tithing funds is considered a sacred responsibility and not one to be taken lightly it is very probably diversified in a way such that the funds are secure and relatively safe from defaults. I don't particularly see the funds as being used as a way to speculate in any for-profit companies -- Church owned or otherwise. The Church has for-profit companies if it wants to do that.

Again, according to your source, there are two reasons given by the church for having for-profit companies. One reqason is pretty-much obsolete, and the other reason is to provide a reasonable return on the resources of the Church.

[Nofear]

It doesn't just store the money. It has invested it in a way that has grown into a multi-billion dollar corporate empire.

...

Again, according to your source, there are two reasons given by the church for having for-profit companies. One reqason is pretty-much obsolete, and the other reason is to provide a reasonable return on the resources of the Church.

"Resources" should not be equated exclusively with tithing. I don't think the Church puts the money under a mattress as it were, but neither do I think the Church is much into using "surplus" tithing as a profit making investment tool for its for-profit entities. I believe the Church treats its tithing budget in a much more fiscally conservative way that its other for-profit revenue streams. You apparently believe otherwise. Neither of us are in the know.

As long as you are willing to adopt the view that if Colly Creek is in budget shortfall then the Church has the wherewithal to back up the project from financial activities of the Church which are not significantly reliant on tithing I'll be content.

[Analytics]

"Resources" should not be equated exclusively with tithing. I don't think the Church puts the money under a mattress as it were, but neither do I think the Church is much into using "surplus" tithing as a profit making investment tool for its for-profit entities.

My point is simply that the for-profit entities wouldn't even exist if the church didn't have extra money on which it wanted to make a reasonable return.

I believe the Church treats its tithing budget in a much more fiscally conservative way that its other for-profit revenue streams. You apparently believe otherwise. Neither of us are in the know.

If the Church takes in $X in tithing receipts and then invests a percentage of that in for-profit enterprises in order to "make a reasonable return", is the "reasonable return" it made on the tithing receipts any less sacred than the original principle?

Even the businesses that have existed since pioneer days represent the accumulated wealth of what was originally consecrated time, land, and money by the early Saints.

As long as you are willing to adopt the view that if Colly Creek is in budget shortfall then the Church has the wherewithal to back up the project from financial activities of the Church which are not significantly reliant on tithing I'll be content.

I'm quite sure that the business empire that the church owns has extensive resources to finance their activities. I just keep in mind that the very reason these businesses exist is to make a reasonable return on the money the church hasn't yet spent on BYU, the mission program, General Conference, etc.

I simply don't believe that the money the church makes in its for-profit businesses should be considered somehow less sacred than its tithing receipts.

[Nofear]

I'm quite sure that the business empire that the church owns has extensive resources to finance their activities. I just keep in mind that the very reason these businesses exist is to make a reasonable return on the money the church hasn't yet spent on BYU, the mission program, General Conference, etc.

I find this statement rather myopic. There is plenty that the Church does that does not necessarily or ethically qualify as tax-exempt activities.

[Analytics]

I find this statement rather myopic. There is plenty that the Church does that does not necessarily or ethically qualify as tax-exempt activities.

Of course that is true, but it doesn't refute my point. Why should the church do things that don't qualify as tax-exempt activities? Does owning office buildings, apartments, radio stations, shopping malls, cattle ranches, etc. somehow help it to pefect the saints, preach the gospel, and redeem the dead? If not, why do it?

The answer the EOM article gave was because they want to earn a reasonable return on their assets. I'm being myopic for accepting the EOM at face value?

[Nofear]

Of course that is true, but it doesn't refute my point. Why should the church do things that don't qualify as tax-exempt activities? Does owning office buildings, apartments, radio stations, shopping malls, cattle ranches, etc. somehow help it to pefect the saints, preach the gospel, and redeem the dead? If not, why do it?

The answer the EOM article gave was because they want to earn a reasonable return on their assets. I'm being myopic for accepting the EOM at face value?

Yes, I do think you are too narrowly focused on money/investment as a "return". Office buildings allow the Church to own the property and operate ultimately at a cheaper cost. But sometimes also at less hassle. Radio stations allow the Church to disseminate it's voice with less hassle (a kind of return). Shopping malls in the Church headquarters area allow the Church to influence the environment so that the headquarters are clean, civil, and productive. Also an intangible return. Etc. It's not always about the money...

From my perspective, your myopia is further exemplified by this statement:

I simply don't believe that the money the church makes in its for-profit businesses should be considered somehow less sacred than its tithing receipts.

I dare say that you would be hard pressed to find many Mormons who equate the sacredness of tithing with the profit made by Deseret Book selling Baby Touch and Feel: Wild Animals, much less anybody in the presiding bishopric.

Anyway, there's little left to be said. You clearly have a different perspective on the Church and its fiscal activities. But the data isn't available that would decidedly refute the speculative perspective. I guess the best one can hope for is that you understand that your perspective is not one largely held by members of our community.

[Analytics]

I dare say that you would be hard pressed to find many Mormons who equate the sacredness of tithing with the profit made by Deseret Book selling Baby Touch and Feel: Wild Animals, much less anybody in the presiding bishopric.

Anyway, there's little left to be said. You clearly have a different perspective on the Church and its fiscal activities. But the data isn't available that would decidedly refute the speculative perspective. I guess the best one can hope for is that you understand that your perspective is not one largely held by members of our community.

You'll be happy to know that I agree that most Mormons don't view things the way I do, lol.

Just to make sure I understand your point of view, allow me to offer a simplified example.

Say the church receives $100 in tithing beyond what it spends. It puts the $100 into a savings account that generates 5% interest. In a year, the $100 has grown to $105. Your position is that the new balance in the savings account isn't equally sacred; the original $100 is sacred and can only be spent on stuff like building temples, while the $5 is less sacred, and can be used on things like building shopping centers. Isn't that basically it?

[Nofear]

Say the church receives $100 in tithing beyond what it spends. It puts the $100 into a savings account that generates 5% interest. In a year, the $100 has grown to $105. Your position is that the new balance in the savings account isn't equally sacred; the original $100 is sacred and can only be spent on stuff like building temples, while the $5 is less sacred, and can be used on things like building shopping centers. Isn't that basically it?

I'm quite certain that the presiding bishopric and managers of Church for-profit activities treat their stewardship of such resources as a serious stewardship. Nevertheless, there is a cognitive and auditing distinction between tithing funds, fast offerings, humanitarian donations, stock investments, property assets, etc.

As to your specific example, I doubt there is much difference between the $100 tithing money seed and the $5 return on a hypothetical investment. Rather the $105 will be treated the same attitude of stewardship.

Suppose the $100 of tithing money were invested in some manner in a Church for-profit entity. And a different $100 from a different source were invested in the same company. Would the two monies be treated differently? I doubt it. Nevertheless, the mere fact that tithing money partly funds their activities imparts a greater responsibility. Just ask anybody who works for the Church. BYU is heavily subsidized with tithing funds (not as an investment or loan but as a direct payment). Do the faculty therefore treat their assets with a greater sense of responsibility? I have heard personally such discussions and that the answer is yes. Not that all resources shouldn't be treated with the same level of stewardship but that failure to rise to the level of a good steward with tithing funds is a more an error for tithing funds than other.

But I have little interest in pursuing the above point for ultimately this is neither here nor there. The fact remains that City Creek is not directly funded via tithing funds. Nor if City Creek were an utter and catastrophic fiscal failure would tithing funds likely be used to rescue the project. And that was my response to Cinepro's misguided post #17. The post showed an utter failure in understanding in how the Church operates fiscally.

[Analytics]

The fact remains that City Creek is not directly funded via tithing funds.

(emphasis added)

I don't think anybody is arguing with you on this.

The fact remains that City Creek is not directly funded via tithing funds....

(Emphasis added)

Nobody is arguing with this, either.

Nor if City Creek were an utter and catastrophic fiscal failure would tithing funds likely be used to rescue the project. And that was my response to Cinepro's misguided post #17. The post showed an utter failure in understanding in how the Church operates fiscally.

How do you know? You seem to agree that in principle, the church is willing to invest money, including tithing funds, in DMC in order to earn a reasonable return. Are you 100% sure they wouldn't help out, even indirrectly, if they had extra tithing money to invest and thought the risk and return characteristics on this marginal investment were favorable?

[Jeff K.]

To me its not important whether they invest or not into an area, a certain trust or faith comes into play regarding the use of funds and growth of the church. If they use tithing funds, I would feel they have a good reason. After all, its not my money, its theirs.

[blackstrap]

Perhaps the parable of the talents(particularly the guy with one talent) will give some insight into how the Lord expects a business to be run.