ERayR Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 This does appear to be a direct response to the Bloomberg article "How the Mormons Make Money" as it addresses many of the same issues. I do not make a habit of reading Bloomberg, can anyone comment on whether their articles tend to be of the same journalistic quality (or lack there of in this case) as this article. It really surprised me that Business magazine would release an article so full of assumptions and conjecture. Is that common in this area?It would seem that in the interest of providing an accurate picture of a financial entity you would either avoid any financial references when data is not available, or you would provide a statement from the entity allowing them to explain their actions (such as the article given above) when you are going to make assumptions about their behavior.In the interest of fairness the article in the OP does not provide much financial data either to backup its claims, but it does better explain the motivations behind some of its actions. Something like this would have been good to include along with the Bloomberg article.Many publishers have taken political stances and have turned their publications into political advocates. Mayor Bloomberg has done this. The Bloomberg piece was an attempt to damage Romney through his church. See, big rich guy is a member of big rich heartless church.
Yep Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 (edited) Oh, and I think this is an important scripture, I believe it talks to the literal monies held by the Lord's servants as well as the symbolic interpretations:Matthew 25:14-3014 ¶For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.15 And unto one he agave five btalents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.16 Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.17 And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.18 But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord’s money.19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and areckoneth with them.20 And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou adeliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful aservant: thou hast been bfaithful over a few things, I will make thee cruler over many things: enter thou into the djoy of thy lord.22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and afaithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an ahard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:25 And I was aafraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and aslothful servant, thou knewest that I breap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with ausury.28 Take therefore the atalent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.29 For unto every one that hath shall be agiven, and he shall have babundance: but from him that hath not shall be ctaken away even that which he hath.30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Edited July 12, 2012 by Yep
Ariarates Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 I do not make a habit of reading Bloomberg, can anyone comment on whether their articles tend to be of the same journalistic quality (or lack there of in this case) as this article. It really surprised me that Business magazine would release an article so full of assumptions and conjecture. Is that common in this area?When I read the article, I got the impression that they did some pretty thorough interviews with a few key LDS players like senior managers at DMC and such. Why would you say this article lacks journalistic quality? As long as the church keeps its books closed, people are going to do their own investigating, You can't keep your books closed and then complain that people get it wrong (without backing up that complaint with any evidence, btw).The complete lack of financial transparency and accountability are the key issue here. Few people will be hung up on the exact numbers, be they 20, 30 or 40 billion. What people are going to remember is that the church has lots of money and zero accountaility.Take me away, mods! 3
KevinG Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 The complete lack of financial transparency and accountability are the key issue here. Few people will be hung up on the exact numbers, be they 20, 30 or 40 billion. What people are going to remember is that the church has lots of money and zero accountaility.There is lots of accountability - you would know that if you ever held a calling where you were responsible for church funds and their dispersal. Transparency is another matter and I have yet to hear a compelling argument that the church should open its private finances to a critical public. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 As long as the church keeps its books closed, people are going to do their own investigating, You can't keep your books closed and then complain that people get it wrong (without backing up that complaint with any evidence, btw).They still have a responsibility to be accurate, regardless of how forthcoming sources may or may not be.And I say this as a professional journalist.
Ariarates Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 Given the number of times the church has poured money and food into disaster areas and the individual Saints I know that opened their food storage up to locals during earthquakes and local disasters that statement is perfectly consistent with the way the Latter-day Saints operate.I agree, but the statement mentioned a global food crisis, not local disasters. Are we going end times again? I thought Elder Packer just pushed back the deadline for that...
Analytics Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 Wrong implication.... Congratulations. You got it exactly backwards... I don't see how your conclusion follows. I see nothing in the article that could justify the assumption that the tithing money is converted into business expenditures.... I'm not getting how that statement implies that the critics are correct.... I think you guys misunderstood what I said.The Church lives within its means, doesn’t it? In good years, it spends less than it takes in and saves the rest, doesn’t it? Isn’t that what it means to “save for a rainy day”?Do you agree with me up to this point?As an example, let’s say that in a good year the church brought in $100,000,000 in tithing revenue, and only spent $90,000,000 on buildings, BYU, etc. What would it do with the extra $10,000,000? It could just leave it in a checking account. It could put it in a savings account. It could invest it in 90-day CDs. It could invest in mutual funds. It could even buy stocks. How is it going to invest the money in the rainy day fund?They say “the Church’s business assets [serve] as a rainy day fund.” That answers the question of how they save the money they put in their rainy-day fund—they invest it in their for-profit business. For example, say Bonneville International has an opportunity to purchase a radio station in New York for $10,000,000. They believed they could earn a 15% ROI on that purchase. If that were the best opportunity to present itself and the church had extra tithing money from a good year to invest in its rainy-day fund, it would funnel the money to Bonneville International so that it purchase the radio station. Thus, it would be saving money in its rainy-day fund and putting it to productive use.Do you disagree? If the Church doesn’t funnel tithing money into its rainy-day fund (i.e. its for-profit businesses), that means that it doesn’t save for a rainy day. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 I think you guys misunderstood what I said.The Church lives within its means, doesn’t it? In good years, it spends less than it takes in and saves the rest, doesn’t it? Isn’t that what it means to “save for a rainy day”?Do you agree with me up to this point?As an example, let’s say that in a good year the church brought in $100,000,000 in tithing revenue, and only spent $90,000,000 on buildings, BYU, etc. What would it do with the extra $10,000,000?It could just leave it in a checking account. It could put it in a savings account. It could invest it in 90-day CDs. It could invest in mutual funds. It could even buy stocks. How is it going to invest the money in the rainy day fund?They say “the Church’s business assets [serve] as a rainy day fund.” That answers the question of how they save the money they put in their rainy-day fund—they invest it in their for-profit business. For example, say Bonneville International has an opportunity to purchase a radio station in New York for $10,000,000. They believed they could earn a 15% ROI on that purchase. If that were the best opportunity to present itself and the church had extra tithing money from a good year to invest in its rainy-day fund, it would funnel the money to Bonneville International so that it purchase the radio station. Thus, it would be saving money in its rainy-day fund and putting it to productive use.Do you disagree? If the Church doesn’t funnel tithing money into its rainy-day fund (i.e. its for-profit businesses), that means that it doesn’t save for a rainy day.I still say you are jumping to conclusions.
KevinG Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 I agree, but the statement mentioned a global food crisis, not local disasters. Are we going end times again? I thought Elder Packer just pushed back the deadline for that... The LDS Church has always gone all of the above. Putting up goods and materials for bad times does not have to specify a local, global, temporary or long term need. Its just a good inspired idea.
ERayR Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 When I read the article, I got the impression that they did some pretty thorough interviews with a few key LDS players like senior managers at DMC and such. Why would you say this article lacks journalistic quality? As long as the church keeps its books closed, people are going to do their own investigating, You can't keep your books closed and then complain that people get it wrong (without backing up that complaint with any evidence, btw).The complete lack of financial transparency and accountability are the key issue here. Few people will be hung up on the exact numbers, be they 20, 30 or 40 billion. What people are going to remember is that the church has lots of money and zero accountaility.Take me away, mods!How much of your donations do you want accounted for?
cinepro Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 People are saying "rainy day fund" as if for-profit businesses are always cash positive.Certainly, in the last 160 years, there have to have been instances of Church-owned business finding themselves in dire financial straits. When this happens, does anyone know if the policy is for the business to find its own financial lifeline (independent of the Church) or founder? Or will the Church step in and prop up the business with a lifeline originated in tithing-provided money, with the books being adjusted when (and if) the business regains its footing? 1
Ariarates Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 There is lots of accountability - you would know that if you ever held a calling where you were responsible for church funds and their dispersal. Transparency is another matter and I have yet to hear a compelling argument that the church should open its private finances to a critical public.All I know is that I had to wire all the money to the stake's bank account first thing Monday morning and we get an annual visit from stake auditors who check that all the money was indeed sent to the stake's bank account. I've never seen any accountability in the other direction in any of the callings I have ever served in, neither at the ward nor the stake level.And if you need a compelling reason for transparency in financial matters, I suggest you start watching the news and maybe catch up on the last three and a half years or so. 2
KevinG Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 People are saying "rainy day fund" as if for-profit businesses are always cash positive.Certainly, in the last 160 years, there have to have been instances of Church-owned business finding themselves in dire financial straits. When this happens, does anyone know if the policy is for the business to find its own financial lifeline (independent of the Church) or founder? Or will the Church step in and prop up the business with a lifeline originated in tithing-provided money, with the books being adjusted when (and if) the business regains its footing?There was a quote from someone yesterday (I hope someone can find it for me) that said if a business if viable and needs short term cash it would flow into the commercial enterprise.
Ariarates Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 They still have a responsibility to be accurate, regardless of how forthcoming sources may or may not be. And I say this as a professional journalist.I agree. As a professional journalist, where do you think the article isn't accurate?
ERayR Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 I think you guys misunderstood what I said.The Church lives within its means, doesn’t it? In good years, it spends less than it takes in and saves the rest, doesn’t it? Isn’t that what it means to “save for a rainy day”?Do you agree with me up to this point?As an example, let’s say that in a good year the church brought in $100,000,000 in tithing revenue, and only spent $90,000,000 on buildings, BYU, etc. What would it do with the extra $10,000,000?It could just leave it in a checking account. It could put it in a savings account. It could invest it in 90-day CDs. It could invest in mutual funds. It could even buy stocks. How is it going to invest the money in the rainy day fund?They say “the Church’s business assets [serve] as a rainy day fund.” That answers the question of how they save the money they put in their rainy-day fund—they invest it in their for-profit business. For example, say Bonneville International has an opportunity to purchase a radio station in New York for $10,000,000. They believed they could earn a 15% ROI on that purchase. If that were the best opportunity to present itself and the church had extra tithing money from a good year to invest in its rainy-day fund, it would funnel the money to Bonneville International so that it purchase the radio station. Thus, it would be saving money in its rainy-day fund and putting it to productive use.Do you disagree? If the Church doesn’t funnel tithing money into its rainy-day fund (i.e. its for-profit businesses), that means that it doesn’t save for a rainy day.The church policy is to live within its means. The church has a whole world in which to use those means. This means they have ample projects to use them on. That means that if they take in $100,000,000 they spend or allocate $100,000,000. As stated the for profit businesses are the rainy day fund.
KevinG Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 All I know is that I had to wire all the money to the stake's bank account first thing Monday morning and we get an annual visit from stake auditors who check that all the money was indeed sent to the stake's bank account. I've never seen any accountability in the other direction in any of the callings I have ever served in, neither at the ward nor the stake level.And if you need a compelling reason for transparency in financial matters, I suggest you start watching the news and maybe catch up on the last three and a half years or so.Thank you for verifying you have not held a calling where decisions were made on how to support the Saints with the funds and that your experience is years old. I am well informed on commercial and government finances and am still convinced I'd rather donate to the church than the state or my mattress.
sjdawg Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 The church policy is to live within its means. The church has a whole world in which to use those means. This means they have ample projects to use them on. That means that if they take in $100,000,000 they spend or allocate $100,000,000. As stated the for profit businesses are the rainy day fund.Is there a policy somewhere that states that the inputs = the outputs in a given year?
Analytics Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 I still say you are jumping to conclusions.Here is what the church said:The vast majority of the income used to manage the Church comes from tithing…Tithing has thus proved to be an enormous blessing to the Church and its people, along with simple but sound economic principles such as avoiding debt, living within one’s means, and setting aside funds for a rainy day….Today, the Church’s business assets support the Church’s mission and principles by serving as a rainy day fund.What conclusion do you want me to come to? That the church doesn't set aside funds for a rainy day? That it never saves anything from the source which constitutes the vast majority of its income? That the church doesn't put the money it saves for a rainy day in its rainy day fund? 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 (edited) People are saying "rainy day fund" as if for-profit businesses are always cash positive.Certainly, in the last 160 years, there have to have been instances of Church-owned business finding themselves in dire financial straits. When this happens, does anyone know if the policy is for the business to find its own financial lifeline (independent of the Church) or founder? Or will the Church step in and prop up the business with a lifeline originated in tithing-provided money, with the books being adjusted when (and if) the business regains its footing?What I have observed is that if a business fails to pay its own way, the Church unloads it. Think U&I Sugar Co. Think Hotel Utah.When the Deseret News hit hard times a couple of years ago, the Church didn't divest it, but it did lay off nearly 40 percent of the workforce and restructure it to the point it regained financial viability. Edited July 12, 2012 by Scott Lloyd
Calm Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 Do you disagree? If the Church doesn’t funnel tithing money into its rainy-day fund (i.e. its for-profit businesses), that means that it doesn’t save for a rainy day.Or the tithing could be kept in a separate fund from which church needs are pulled first so that there is no inadvertent mixing of tithing donations with for-profit investments. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 What conclusion do you want me to come to?How about no conclusion at all until you have something solid to go on? 1
Ariarates Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 How much of your donations do you want accounted for?Of my donations: none. I think it would place a huge administrative burden on the church to track individual donations. But with computers and spreadsheets and ERP-systems (all of which the church has) you can add them all up and give a full and honest account of your financial dealings, down to the last penny (give or take a few bucks for human error).It really strikes me as odd that so many LDS would resist this idea. We want it in government, we want it in the financial sector, we want it in the PTA and the soccer club. Financial transparency and accountability are good things, folks! 2
sjdawg Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 Or the tithing could be kept in a separate fund from which church needs are pulled first so that there is no inadvertent mixing of tithing donations with for-profit investments.When did the policy change on using tithing money to fund for-profit investments? Does anyone know? I assume that in the early stages of the Church that tithing money was used as the seed money for the investments (unless the early Church had another source of income I'm not aware of). I'm just curious when they (The Church) started keeping the two completely seperate.
ERayR Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 People are saying "rainy day fund" as if for-profit businesses are always cash positive.Certainly, in the last 160 years, there have to have been instances of Church-owned business finding themselves in dire financial straits. When this happens, does anyone know if the policy is for the business to find its own financial lifeline (independent of the Church) or founder? Or will the Church step in and prop up the business with a lifeline originated in tithing-provided money, with the books being adjusted when (and if) the business regains its footing?The churches for profit portfolio is diversified well enough that all for profit enterprises would not be in trouble at the same time. Therefore one section of the for profit portfolio would be used to prop up another section. Not-for-profit tax regulations have to be strictly adhered to as far as charitable contributions. There is a certain percent that can be spent for overhead but the rest of the charitable donations must be spent for the stated charitable purpose. Tax returns must be filed annually and are subject to IRS audit. What are the odds that the church is not or has not or will not be audited?
Scott Lloyd Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 I agree. As a professional journalist, where do you think the article isn't accurate?I wasn't referencing the article. I was responding to this assertion of yours:You can't keep your books closed and then complain that people get it wrong (without backing up that complaint with any evidence, btw).I'm saying that silence on the part of a source does not excuse fact errors.
Recommended Posts