CV75 Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 This implies that the church uses some of the money it collects for the listed missions, and saves the rest by investing it in the “rainy-day fund” that consists of for-profit businesses. This vindicates the critics who have claimed that the for-profit businesses were in fact capitalized with tithing money.But the implication is only in the eye of the critic, and the critic still cannot win the argument that implication means this (for-ptofit business convertibility) is inherently a bad thing.Second, the fact remains that until the church discloses its financial statements to its members and other interested parties, interested parties will continue to speculate on what the financial statements reveal.I think that is the point of the article: speculation is not the function of faith or spiritual knowledge. There is not dictum that speculation cease, only the observation that doing so is unproductive and way off the mark.
ERayR Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 Is there a policy somewhere that states that the inputs = the outputs in a given year?To within a certain smal percent it is required by IRS regulations. Funds may be designated for projects and accumulated but the collections minus operating overhead must be used for the designated purpose.
Analytics Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 How about no conclusion at all until you have something solid to go on?The Church says that it believes in living within its means and setting aside funds for a rainy day. It further clarified that the rainy day fund is the for-profit arm of the church. Why isn't it solid to take them at their word on this? Do you have reason to believe they are lying about this?
KevinG Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 Is there a policy somewhere that states that the inputs = the outputs in a given year?Joseph had Egypt running on a 7 year cycle.
ERayR Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 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!Why duplicate IRS efforts?
Ariarates Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 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.You're welcome. If that was your question, why did you not come right out and ask it?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.That is a tu quoque argument and it is a fallacy. The fact that financial transparency and accountability aren't sufficiently present in commerce and government (as you say by appealing to your own authority) doesn't mean that they needn't be in order in the church.
Calm Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 Is there a policy somewhere that states that the inputs = the outputs in a given year?Quite awhile back either on this board I remember someone saying that the Church plans 3 years in advance for at least buildings, any money taken in this year is applied to the third year.
ERayR Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 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.I don't know if it was before or not but certainly when the IRS became involved.
sjdawg Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 (edited) Quite awhile back either on this board I remember someone saying that the Church plans 3 years in advance for at least buildings, any money taken in this year is applied to the third year.That makes sense to me. I'd actually be surprised if many projects aren't planned further in advance than that. Thank you Edited July 12, 2012 by sjdawg
KevinG Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 (edited) You're welcome. If that was your question, why did you not come right out and ask it?That is a tu quoque argument and it is a fallacy. The fact that financial transparency and accountability aren't sufficiently present in commerce and government (as you say by appealing to your own authority) doesn't mean that they needn't be in order in the church.You are still confusing "in order" with "published for public consumption" the two do not equate.Before comparing the church with government and private industry do you have any evidence of any instance where the church mishandled funds that were entrusted to it?P.S. How is my statement that I trust the church to use my surplus more than government and private industry an argument in any way? Edited July 12, 2012 by KevinG
Ariarates Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 I'm saying that silence on the part of a source does not excuse fact errors.OK, in that case: which factual errors are there in the article? If I read it correctly, they clearly indicate what is speculation and what is not? 1
Analytics 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.What would they do with this money in the "separate fund"? Leave it in a checking account? Is it unreasonable speculation to think that they keep the parable of the talents in mind and are going to want to put it to productive use? I doubt they'd invest it in Coca Cola stock. I would think they'd invest it in Deseret Management Corp stocks and bonds. After all, that's their rainy day fund.
Calm Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 (unless the early Church had another source of income I'm not aware of)Church members have always donated more than just tithing.There is also the complication of the United Order donated properties and how they were handled plus the Church became owner of a lot of land when settling in Utah.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 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!Maybe that's because you fail to recognize what scholar Richard Bushman referred to as "the routinization of charisma" in the Church of Jesus Christ.By that, he meant the assurance felt by believing Latter-day Saints that the Church is divinely directed and that its leaders as a body, who function under such direction, will not drift into wrongdoing. This applies to the Church's financial affairs as much as to anything else.It's something that I fear unbelievers and critics will never understand. But then, it's none of their affair in the first place. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 The Church says that it believes in living within its means and setting aside funds for a rainy day. It further clarified that the rainy day fund is the for-profit arm of the church. Why isn't it solid to take them at their word on this? Do you have reason to believe they are lying about this?Why don't you be honest with us and admit you are speculating and extrapolating from this statement that the Church uses tithing funds to invest in business?
Scott Lloyd Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 (edited) OK, in that case: which factual errors are there in the article? If I read it correctly, they clearly indicate what is speculation and what is not?I told you: I'm not referencing the article. I was responding to your assertion.A source's silence does not relieve the journalist of the responsibility to get it right. Do you deny this? Edited July 12, 2012 by Scott Lloyd
CV75 Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 Financial transparency and accountability are good things, folks!The Church only works for people who judge it by its fruits, which are personal and priceless and cannot be expressed in financial terms. It isn’t supposed to work otherwise. Spiritual transparency and accountability are often hidden from the world (this world, anyway).
ERayR Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 What would they do with this money in the "separate fund"? Leave it in a checking account? Is it unreasonable speculation to think that they keep the parable of the talents in mind and are going to want to put it to productive use? I doubt they'd invest it in Coca Cola stock. I would think they'd invest it in Deseret Management Corp stocks and bonds. After all, that's their rainy day fund.The church has agroup of very fine financial people taking care of thes investments. I do know charitable contributions can not be mixed with for profit enterprises. As far as I know after taxes are paid the income from for profit businesses can be donated to the not for profit purposes.
KevinG Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 In a church with millions of adherents and thousands of units I would think critics could find at least one example of misappropriation of funds that was not immediately corrected by the church. Instead we get treated to allegations and suspicion about how we use our own donations. 2
sjdawg Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 Has money ever been embezzled from the LDS Church? I know that currently there are a lot of safeguards in place but I'm not sure if they were established as a preventative measure only or as a result of a hard lesson learned
KevinG Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 Has money ever been embezzled from the LDS Church? I know that currently there are a lot of safeguards in place but I'm not sure if they were established as a preventative measure only or as a result of a hard lesson learned Yes. Misuse of church funds is the only grounds for excommunication without a disciplinary counsel other than predatory behavior.
sjdawg Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 Yes. Misuse of church funds is the only grounds for excommunication without a disciplinary counsel other than predatory behavior.Based on my observation as financial clerk, I think it would be very difficult to do now. It would be picked up very quickly.
Popular Post selek1 Posted July 12, 2012 Popular Post 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? Because out of those "thorough interviews", they released only carefully selected sound bites.Rampant speculation was treated as established fact, and openly hostile critics were treated as though they were objective observers.Honest journalists would have qualified their statements, identified critics as such, and offered a balance of viewpoints.The Bloomberg article did nothing of the sort.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 Bloomberg article is not egregious because "it gets it wrong", but because it deliberately set out to damage the Church. That's not journalism, it's propaganda.It's not journalism, it's political hackery.The complete lack of financial transparency and accountability are the key issue here. Even if you were arguing in good faith- and you're not- this idea would be laughable.The Church has no legal or moral obligation to open its books to the prurient interests of shills and trolls such as yourself. It is simply none of your business. That is the key and central issue.Nor would the critics be satisfied were we to open our books.Candidate Romney has done so- he released all of his tax returns, as required by law and good faith. His critics and political enemies are now demanding that he release a full decade of returns- despite the fact that he has already met hus legal and moral obligation. Why? Do they have any evidence that he is hiding something?No- they are doing it because they are on a fishing expedition.Because their own candidate is indefensible, they are desperately casting about for anything that can be parlayed into a weapon against Romney.The critics of the Church are no different.They have no evidence- nor even a reasonable suspicion- that the Church has behaved in any fashion or manner that is dishonest or irresponsible- but they won't rest until it is destroyed. 5
Analytics Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 The church has agroup of very fine financial people taking care of thes investments. I do know charitable contributions can not be mixed with for profit enterprises. As far as I know after taxes are paid the income from for profit businesses can be donated to the not for profit purposes.I'm not saying they can be "mixed." I'm saying the church can and does invest its assets. There are simple (and complex) ways a non-profit can invest money in for-profit businesses in a way that doesn't constitute "mixing" them. It can do this regardless of whether or not it owns the for-profit business it invests in.
Recommended Posts