Lds Church Issues Statement Re: Church Finances

[ERayR]

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!

ARE YOU NOT LISTENING I have been telling you the 990 series tax forms are filed annually.

Q:

Where can I find an organization’s Form 990 or 990-PF?

A:

According to IRS disclosure regulations, exempt organizations must make its three most recently filed annual 990 or 990-PF returns and all related supporting documents available for public inspection. This public disclosure rule also applies to Form 1023, which is filed to obtain exempt status.

These can be requested from the IRS.

[Pahoran]

This vindicates the critics

Well of course you would say that, wouldn't you?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Analytics]

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?

I'm not being dishonest and I'm not speculating. I'm taking what the church actually said at face-value. The Church lives within its means. It saves for a rainy day. Its rainy day fund includes its group of for profit businesses.

It's amusing that you take issue with this. You think the church shouldn't live within its means? You think it shouldn't add to its rainy day fund? You think the rainy day fund shouldn't be invested in business?

The leaders of the church aren't going to follow the example of the wicked and slothful servant and put the rainy day in a checking account that doesn't earn interest.

They know that to earn interest they have to invest in business or loan the money to individuals or the government. Given the church's teachings on avoiding debt, I have a hard time imagining them investing in government bonds or Capital-One credit-card asset backed securities. So if that is what their moral compass is, they are going to invest it in businesses.

But I don't think they are going to invest the money in Coca Cola stock or Walgreens stock. They are going to invest it in companies they know and trust, such as the companies that they own.

Again, its funny that you think I'm jumping to conclusions.

Edited July 12, 2012 by Analytics

[Senator]

I'm interested in this statement:

Brigham Young once remarked that if the Latter-day Saints could have ten years unmolested in the Rocky Mountain Valleys, they would establish themselves as an independent people. Over time Brigham Young’s vision of a thrifty, independent and spiritual people largely came to be realized.

I'm not sure I understand how this can be said to have been largely realized? I understand that the church has become "independent", financially, but certainly its people are not. I think it is a mistake to conflate the church with the people in this regard.

[wenglund]

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.

Not that this is any of your former member business or even my current member business, it is uncertain whether the tithes in any given year are greater or less than what the Church, itself, spends fulfilling its mission. However, given the statement from the Church says: "The vast majority of the income used to manage the Church comes from tithing, not from businesses or investments," the implication to me is that some of the monies in any given year used to manage the Church comes from businesses or investments (i.e. rainy day funds). In other words, tithes tend not entirely cover the cost of managing the Church in good or bad years, and in order to live within its means, the difference is made up by the rainy day fund--which is exactly what a rainy day fund is for. This means that money comes from the rainy day fund to the Church, and not the other way around.

I repeat, congratulations, you got it exactly backwards. Not only are you sticking your nose where it doesn't belong, you are sticking it in upside-down.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CV75]

I'm interested in this statement:

Brigham Young once remarked that if the Latter-day Saints could have ten years unmolested in the Rocky Mountain Valleys, they would establish themselves as an independent people. Over time Brigham Young’s vision of a thrifty, independent and spiritual people largely came to be realized.

I'm not sure I understand how this can be said to have been largely realized? I understand that the church has become "independent", financially, but certainly its people are not. I think it is a mistake to conflate the church with the people in this regard.

As a whole, the people did/do realize the vision, even if in a three-steps-foward (at which point it can be said it has been largely realized) / two-steps-back (not) fashion. The more it grows globally, the more Church will experience these superficially-observed backwards steps due to rapid expansion in poor countries, but overall the realization of the dream by numbers of individuals is going in the right direction. And thrift, independence and spirituality, are all relative terms when it comes to progress.

[Analytics]

Not that this is any of your former member business or even my current member business, it is uncertain whether the tithes in any given year are greater or less than what the Church, itself, spends fulfilling its mission. However, given the statement from the Church says: "The vast majority of the income used to manage the Church comes from tithing, not from businesses or investments," the implication to me is that some of the monies in any given year used to manage the Church comes from businesses or investments (i.e. rainy day funds). In other words, tithes tend not entirely cover the cost of managing the Church in good or bad years, and in order to live within its means, the difference is made up by the rainy day fund--which is exactly what a rainy day fund is for. This means that money comes from the rainy day fund to the Church, and not the other way around.

I know you might not understand this because you used to live in Seattle where it rains every day, but in general, a rainy day fund implies that you save money on the days that it doesn't rain so that you have extra money left over on the days that it does. If the vast majority of the church's income comes from tithing, that implies that on the sunny days, it saves some of it for rainy days.

If the for-profit businesses served as a perpetual source of additional income that is depended upon and constantly drawn upon for the church's ongoing mission, they would refer to it as a perpetuity, not as a rainy day fund.

I repeat, congratulations, you got it exactly backwards. Not only are you sticking your nose where it doesn't belong, you are sticking it in upside-down.

Is that how you respond to everybody who reads the church's press releases? It's odd that you fault me for listening to the church's public pronouncement on the matter.

[Scott Lloyd]

I know you might not understand this because you used to live in Seattle where it rains every day, but in general, a rainy day fund implies that you save money on the days that it doesn't rain so that you have extra money left over on the days that it does. If the vast majority of the church's income comes from tithing, that implies that on the sunny days, it saves some of it for rainy days.

If the for-profit businesses served as a perpetual source of additional income that is depended upon and constantly drawn upon for the church's ongoing mission, they would refer to it as a perpetuity, not as a rainy day fund.

Maybe if they were communicating with people who they were confident would understand the jargon.

If the intended audience is the non-jargon-speaking public, it makes more sense to me that they would use a more easily understood term such as "rainy-day fund," which most people understand to mean simply an emergency fund.

In any event, it's not self-evident to me that the wording in the Church's statement was intended to convey the meaning you want it to: that tithing funds are used to invest in or bolster commercial enterprises.

(BTW, I accidentally gave you a rep point on your last post. I had intended to hit the "Quote" button. So Merry Christmas.)

Edited July 12, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm not being dishonest and I'm not speculating. I'm taking what the church actually said at face-value.

You are engaging in sophistry.

[Senator]

but overall the realization of the dream by numbers of individuals is going in the right direction.

In what way?

What spurred my statement is my understanding ( and that may be flawed) of what the vision of B. Young and J. Smith was. Their vision of an independent people was centered around the vision of a zion, the blessed state (society) resulting from a righteous people. That the individual could receive and everlasting inheritance in said society, which was as much temporal as it was spiritual. They could not be removed..etc, except for apostacy. The ultimate desire of this is that such a society was to receive the direct blessing of God upon it. He would be its provider and protector. So, in this respect it can be said that the institutional church has obtained a certain degree of independence and security. However, the church as a people, still have no such assurance. (again, temporally speaking)

[bluebell]

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.

Which people are going to remember this?

[ERayR]

You are engaging in sophistry.

He seems to be ignoring my posts.

[wenglund]

I know you might not understand this because you used to live in Seattle where it rains every day, but in general, a rainy day fund implies that you save money on the days that it doesn't rain so that you have extra money left over on the days that it does.

Perhaps because of your myopic view of the world, you haven't been exposed to broader and more widely understood meaning of "rainy day fund,"--i.e. "Rainy day fund, rainy day reserve, or emergency fund are terms used to describe a reserved amount of money to be used in times when regular income is disrupted or decreased in order for typical operations to continue." The competent reader will note that the source of those funds is nowhere stated or implied presumably because the source isn't what is relevant as well as there is a broad range of sources for such funds.

If the vast majority of the church's income comes from tithing, that implies that on the sunny days, it saves some of it for rainy days.

It amazes me how many things you got wrong in such a brief comment. The Church's statement about "vast majority" was in relation to Church expenses, not income. And even were we to grant, for the sake of argument, that the "vast majority" of income comes from tithes, this simply tells us the source of income, and says nothing about how the income is used, whether on a sunny or a rainy day. Rather, if you were to have read and comprehended the statement correctly, you would have understood it exactly as I said.

If the for-profit businesses served as a perpetual source of additional income that is depended upon and constantly drawn upon for the church's ongoing mission, they would refer to it as a perpetuity, not as a rainy day fund.

No. They can, and have rightly referred to it as a rainy day fund since it is used whenever to meet shortfalls.

Is that how you respond to everybody who reads the church's press releases? It's odd that you fault me for listening to the church's public pronouncement on the matter.

You seem incapable of getting anything right. I haven't once or even remotely spoken out against people reading Church press releases or for listening to Church pronouncement. Rather, what I have criticized is former-member busy-body critics voicing their opinions about things related to the Church that are none of their business, and doing so in a way that gets the Church's statement exactly backwards.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 13, 2012 by wenglund

[Scott Lloyd]

Analytics from Post #62:

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.

Analytics from Post #78:

I'm not being dishonest and I'm not speculating.

(Bold emphasis added.)

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Does DMC issue stocks and bonds?

I wasn't under the impression it was a publicly held corporation.

[Nofear]

Perhaps because of your myopic view of the world, you haven't been exposed to broader and more widely understood meaning of "rainy day fund,"--i.e. "Rainy day fund, rainy day reserve, or emergency fund are terms used to describe a reserved amount of money to be used in times when regular income is disrupted or decreased in order for typical operations to continue." The competent reader will note that the source of those funds is nowhere stated or implied presumably because the source isn't what is relevant as well as there is a broad range of sources for such funds.

Indeed, if one were to speculate, I would speculate the the Church would first opt to prop up faltering business times from its many secular assets before resorting to tithing. Seems it would be simpler. The Church does get its for-profit entities audited by independent auditing firms or government agencies.

[Bernard Gui]

I'm interested in this statement:

Brigham Young once remarked that if the Latter-day Saints could have ten years unmolested in the Rocky Mountain Valleys, they would establish themselves as an independent people. Over time Brigham Young’s vision of a thrifty, independent and spiritual people largely came to be realized.

I'm not sure I understand how this can be said to have been largely realized? I understand that the church has become "independent", financially, but certainly its people are not. I think it is a mistake to conflate the church with the people in this regard.

Yes, but it positions the Church to remain able to remain a bulwark and refuge during hard times.

That is very important.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

What spurred my statement is my understanding ( and that may be flawed) of what the vision of B. Young and J. Smith was. Their vision of an independent people was centered around the vision of a zion, the blessed state (society) resulting from a righteous people. That the individual could receive and everlasting inheritance in said society, which was as much temporal as it was spiritual. They could not be removed..etc, except for apostacy. The ultimate desire of this is that such a society was to receive the direct blessing of God upon it. He would be its provider and protector. So, in this respect it can be said that the institutional church has obtained a certain degree of independence and security. However, the church as a people, still have no such assurance. (again, temporally speaking)

There are very strong efforts in my stake to stand independent. I see this vision happening first at the local level and

spreading from there, Aaron fast offering program.

Bernard

[Senator]

Yes, but it positions the Church to remain able to remain a bulwark and refuge during hard times.

That is very important.

Bernard

But a bulwark and refuge to whom, and to what degree?

[Senator]

There are very strong efforts in my stake to stand independent. I see this vision happening first at the local level and

spreading from there, Aaron fast offering program.

Bernard

I would be interested in hearing greater detail of this.

[Nofear]

We could tell you but your speculations are far more creative/interesting.

[ERayR]

Does DMC issue stocks and bonds?

I wasn't under the impression it was a publicly held corporation.

It isn't.

Deseret Management Corporation is the holding company which owns the tax-paying companies that fall under the umbrella of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. DMC's Board of Directors is made up of the church's First Presidency, three rotating members of the Quorum of the Twelve, and the Presiding Bishopric.

[wenglund]

Evidently, with certain critics, the word "accountability" is code for "let me mind your business."

They talk about transparency as a good thing, while posting anonymously and hiding their real-life identity. Quite funny.

The Church puts out a statement indicating that what is important to us is bettering people, whereas the critics show what is important to them by jumping all over the Church and demanding "show me your money."

Curious.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[KevinG]

Evidently, with certain critics, the word "accountability" is code for "let me mind your business."

They talk about transparency as a good thing, while posting anonymously and hiding their real-life identity. Quite funny.

The Church puts out a statement indicating that what is important to us is bettering people, whereas the critics show what is important to them by jumping all over the Church and demanding "show me your money."

Curious.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well their ancestors might have given a pig and a bushel of wheat to Brother Brigham and they have an interest in what that investment is providing today.

[Ares]

Clean up on aisle 3. Please avoid personal sniping and stick to the subject at hand.

I just had to delete two more snipes. I will assume you were writing those during the clean up. Any more and the author will be thread banned.