Lds Church Issues Statement Re: Church Finances

[Calm]

This is something I've thought about lately. What if we didn't have the requirement to pay a full tithe before getting a temple recommend, would our church be similar to other faiths as far as financial wealth? I'm aware that in the earlier church there wasn't a requirement to pay a full tithe and also not a requirement to keep the Word of Wisdom, btw. I think some of us need that nudge to do what is asked sometimes.

It is human nature that the things we have to sacrifice more for are the things we generally appreciate more. The early saints sacrificed their lives and their family's lives in order to live the gospel. I think for many of us our money and time come a far second to that type of sacrifice but it is one that is acceptable to the Lord, so we should feel lucky.

[ERayR]

I'm not convinced that "used towards" is as all-encompassing as you think it is. Here are the questions that I have (with my answers in italics; if you disagree with my answers, please tell me which ones):

1- If tithing is by far their main source of revenue for running the church, are they going to budget conservatively and "live within their means"? yes

2- Will they sometimes save some tithing money for a rainy day? yes

3- Will they invest their rainy day fund in a way that generates a good, yet safe return? yes

4- Does investing in a corporation entail "using money towards" the specific, individual projects of that corporation? No(!); from the perspective of the church's books, the money is classified as tithing money and is being saved in assets that produce income and have growth potential. From the church's perspective, the money isn't being used for anything and is simply being saved in a way that allows it go grow. From the point of view of the corporation in which its invested, the corporation has a fiduciary responsibility to run their business well and make a profit for their shareholders. The money they use is simply the business's capital—it isn't 401(k) money or pension money or a somebody's rainy-day-fund money or even a church's tithing money. It is simply the business's capital.

My point in 4 doesn't change if the corporation in which the church invests happens to have no investors other than the church itself.

Let me try one more time. Off the top there are two reasons, there could be more, why that is not going to happen. 1 - the church allocates the money to the projects at hand and all moneys are allocated. When it is held before it is used it is held in very very conservative investments. hint - not stocks or bonds. 2 - The IRS has very strict rules on intermingling not for profit funds with for profit funds. If it were done the not for profit status would be canceled. Due to the constant attacks by anti-religion and anti-Mormon groups to repeal not for profit status for religious groups the church is very vigilant in keeping this separation even down to the local level.

[sjdawg]

Let me try one more time. Off the top there are two reasons, there could be more, why that is not going to happen. 1 - the church allocates the money to the projects at hand and all moneys are allocated. When it is held before it is used it is held in very very conservative investments. hint - not stocks or bonds. 2 - The IRS has very strict rules on intermingling not for profit funds with for profit funds. If it were done the not for profit status would be canceled. Due to the constant attacks by anti-religion and anti-Mormon groups to repeal not for profit status for religious groups the church is very vigilant in keeping this separation even down to the local level.

Would it be against IRS regulations for the LDS Church to provide a loan (using Tithing Funds) payable at a reasonable interest rate to one of it's for-profit organizations?

[smac97]

Hey, Smac, I really respect your opinion and typically find your analysis to be brilliant.

However, I am not sure what happened here.

I agree with you that accountability is a good and proper thing, that is when the accountability is to those whom it is due and not to those it is not. In other words, it is a good and proper thing for a company to be accountable to its investors and debtors; whereas, it is not a good and proper thing for the personal finances of my neighbors to be accountable to me. The Church is quite accountable to the Lord and to it chosen leaders (whose monies it is), and that is a good thing. It isn't accountable to people whose monies it is not and whose business it is not, and that is a good thing.

I think we may be talking past each other a bit, and we probably agree far more than we disagree.

To me, the doctrine of "common consent" in the Church suggests that church members should be attentive to the affairs of the Church. So it is "our business" to some extent. The Church cannot be governed by common consent if we are given no information whatsoever about the fundamental operations of the Church, including expenditures.

That said, I am satisfied that the Church's statement yesterday, along with its annual auditing report, and also the readily discernible manifestations of expenditures (church buildings, missionary program, humanitarian and educational efforts, lack of ostentatious living by the Brethren, etc.) provide sufficient information to allow for the Saints to give reasoned and reasonable deference to the Brethren as to their stewardship of Church funds, and to exercise faith that God is mindful of these matters.

Even were I to liberally grant your point about it being good and proper for the members, to some extent, to be given an accounting of the Lord's money, the problem as I see it has less to do with the Church being accountable, and more to do with certain members not knowing where to practically and appropriately draw the line.

I agree with you. I think we should keep an eye on things generally, and to voice concerns if appropriate. However, our default position should be to sustain the Brethren and afford them deference and latitude in their stewardship of Church funds. The "line" you refer to is crossed when church members and those not of our faith take a "guilty until proven innocent" approach to how the Church spends money. That dog just won't hunt.

As I see it, there is a segment of our population that have become culturally induced into voyeurism and meddling to an alarming scale. These proverbial busy bodies suffer under the delusion that they are entitled to mind other people's business, and have presumptuously taken way too much liberty in sticking their noses where they don't rightly belong. As such, it doesn't make sense to me to compromise what isn't a demonstrable problem (Church accountability), by encouraging that which is a demonstrable problem (people minding other people's business). Yet, that is what you seem to be advocating.

Well, no. I am not encouraging busybodies. I am instead saying that I think there can be a reasonable and good faith concern about how one's church spends its money.

I am also saying that the Church provides a sufficient accounting of this process, both formally (through the annual audit report, through yesterday's statement, etc.) and informally (through observable manifestations of church expenditures, such as buildings, educational/humanitarian endeavors, etc.).

Then there is the demonstrable problem of making the Church accountable to people whose business it isn't, but who also wish to harm the Church. I don't get it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The Church is a missionary church. It is an evangelizing Church. We want everyone to join it. I think the Church needs to be able to provide some assurance that when it comes to the strong impact the Church will have on a prospective member's life (including the prospect of lifelong tithes), the Church is a demonstrably competent and honest steward of its own affairs.

That said, the Church is not a business, so its objectives and the ways it goes about attaining those objectives are obviously going to be different. These differences, including fundamental beliefs in prophetic authority and divine guidance, are seldom acknowledged by secular outsiders. But these differences have a substantial impact on how Church members view the Brethren. I give the Brethren a lot more deference and benefits of the doubt than I do to, say, political or business leaders generally. The former have their actions influenced by all sorts of things, some of which are good and many of which are not. But I believe that the Brethren are, in the main, leading this Church through inspiration from God. I therefore give them a lot of deference and latitude. I am also satisfied that the Church's finances are in order.

The Brethren are not perfect. They make mistakes along the way, and those mistakes will occasionally involve some financial cost to the Church. I'm okay with that, though, because the Church's overall financial decisions appear to be prudent, because I am not aware of any indications that serious mismanagement or malfeasance has occurred, because my sustaining vote for the Brethren makes no sense if I don't sustain them in their stewardship of Church funds, and because I have had strong spiritual experiences demonstrating to me that God is at the helm of the Church and that Thomas S. Monson and the Brethren are, in the main, behaving in accordance with His will and instruction.

Thanks,

-Smac

[wenglund]

Fine... I did not make it personal. Saying that is "none of my business." That is making it personal.

Whatever though...this is the mormon discussion and dialogue board. You faithful folks do represent the church as far as apologetics are concerned. You will either help people stay involved in the church...or you will confirm their skepticism and help drive them out. OR...they will go to other boards to find their answers, boards like NOM, MDB ect.

It doesn't serve us to shoot the doctor for using the very unpleasant chemotherapy of strait talk to try and rid the body of the cancer of overly-meddlesome busy bodies.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 13, 2012 by wenglund

[ERayR]

Would it be against IRS regulations for the LDS Church to provide a loan (using Tithing Funds) payable at a reasonable interest rate to one of it's for-profit organizations?

I really don't know. On the surface it sounds possible if it were kept at and arms length transaction. ie reasonable terms, collection procedures in place etc, etc. Standard business procedures. To answer that would require researching the not for profit tax code and I really don;t feel like that today. Even if it were legal it would surprise me if they did anything like that just because they are very careful even to the local level to the extent that cooperative food buying efforts run by a priesthood quorum or a ward is not allowed. Individual members may do it on their own but not allowed to use church lists as client call lists. They are just very careful.

[sjdawg]

I really don't know. On the surface it sounds possible if it were kept at and arms length transaction. ie reasonable terms, collection procedures in place etc, etc. Standard business procedures. To answer that would require researching the not for profit tax code and I really don;t feel like that today. Even if it were legal it would surprise me if they did anything like that just because they are very careful even to the local level to the extent that cooperative food buying efforts run by a priesthood quorum or a ward is not allowed. Individual members may do it on their own but not allowed to use church lists as client call lists. They are just very careful.

Thank you sir. I appreciate the response and tend to agree with you

Edited July 13, 2012 by sjdawg

[wenglund]

Surely you know that the hunting reserves is a "for profit" business and that couple missionaries help run it, on their dime. There are several missions like that!

Not that this should matter much, but the DMC is the holding company for "for-profit" businesses owned by the Church. Were the hunting reserves actually "for profit" rather than non-profit, as you suggest, then one would expect it to be listed among the DMC holdings. I just checked the DMC web site and found no mention of the hunting reserves on its web site. Doesn't this suggest that the hunting reserves are not "for profit?"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CV75]

Now in the context of the article, I take "independent" to be speaking primarily of financial independence. My response was to question how it can be said that "this people" have become independent.

***

My point was to decare it a mistake to conflate the realization of B. Young's financial independence of "this people" to that of the institutional church.

Yes, I agree that very few LDS people are financially independent in that they can live off their personal material wealth indefinitely without having to work for a living.

The principles of work and progress are so imbedded in the Gospel that in a sense, no one ever achieves financial (or any other) independence because they always need to work and progress to expand the capacity to serve others (and once they set limits, they leave Zion). As a people, Zion is formed of independent people working interdependently, and interdependent people acting more independently than they did before. Even in the “eternal inheritance” God continues to work and serve the needier beings.

In one way, one might still consider that “financial independence” has been achieved individually for those members that call upon Church resources when in need (even if only as a “safety net” for the necessities of life) and that also contribute to or help others in financial need. No one in the Church need ever go without, and in this way they may generously/philosophically be viewed as financially independent, since the "financially independent" Church becomes part of their personal financial reserve, at least when the relationship between the member, the Church, and other members is looked upon as an aspect of Zion.

In another way, a financially independent LDS person can only remain so if he maintains a financial relationship with the Church. Otherwise he’s just a financially independent guy!

[ERayR]

Not that this should matter much, but the DMC is the holding company for "for-profit" businesses owned by the Church. Were the hunting reserves actually "for profit" rather than non-profit, as you suggest, then one would expect it to be listed among the DMC holdings. I just checked the DMC web site and found no mention of the hunting reserves on its web site. Doesn't this suggest that the hunting reserves are not "for profit?"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

My guess, and it is only a guess, is that it is one of those properties used to generate funds used in the church welfare program.

[Scott Lloyd]

Fine... I did not make it personal. Saying that is "none of my business." That is making it personal.

Whatever though...this is the mormon discussion and dialogue board. You faithful folks do represent the church as far as apologetics are concerned. You will either help people stay involved in the church...or you will confirm their skepticism and help drive them out. OR...they will go to other boards to find their answers, boards like NOM, MDB ect.

Most people here are probably not aware — perhaps no one other than I so far — that cwald is doing copy-and-pastes of comments from individuals on this board, posting them on MDB in a longtime thread devoted to derision of those who post here.

Most disturbing to me is that he applied a vulgar epithet to calmoriah, someone I respect and regard highly, someone very even-tempered and fair and who in no way deserves such treatment.

And that is making it personal!

[mnn727]

If you're that worried, then you should withhold your tithing

[Calm]

Most disturbing to me is that he applied a vulgar epithet to calmoriah,

I don't think that has happened to me since high school, actually I think it was Junior High. I didn't get bullied in HS.

Thanks for caring, Scott.

[cwald]

Most people here are probably not aware — perhaps no one other than I so far — that cwald is doing copy-and-pastes of comments from individuals on this board, posting them on MDB in a longtime thread devoted to derision of those who post here.

Most disturbing to me is that he applied a vulgar epithet to calmoriah, someone I respect and regard highly, someone very even-tempered and fair and who in no way deserves such treatment.

And that is making it personal!

Oh, you mean the thread from two-three weeks ago...the weekend when I signed up here, and got treated like crap because the folks here didn't know "what side I was on" and I "confused them?" I was civil. The folks over here were not...mostly Selek...and i don't apologize for my comments about him at MDB. .

Calmariah...yeah. she is okay. I do apologize for that.

Anyway, I thought that was in the past. Why Me invited me to come back over, and assured me I was not "black balled." I did, I have been civil and asked a few questions, made a few comments...mostly just lurking. I have attended church three straight weeks in a row now...in spite of how I am treated by the faithful internet mormons. I have not made my comments personal attacks...for the most part I just have a different perceptive and opinion. I wish you folks would do the same.

[USU78]

It also isn't any wonder that the Church has opted to withhold its fiduciary activities from people who aren't mindful of what the Church is all about and the purposes to which the fiduciary activities are intended (i.e. bringing people to Christ and enabling them to become like him), but who are focused instead on "show me your money."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

One should note, perhaps, that the Person for Whom the Church acts as fiduciary is not, frankly, the members . . . it is Him Who is its Founder.

[wenglund]

I think we may be talking past each other a bit, and we probably agree far more than we disagree.

I am sure you are right.

To me, the doctrine of "common consent" in the Church suggests that church members should be attentive to the affairs of the Church....

It is my understanding that the practice of "common consent" has to do with sustaining callings extended by Church leadership, and doesn't have in mind anything close to cwald having rights to the Church's financial statement and to be told how his/her tithing funds are being spent--at least beyond what is already provided by the Church during General Conference. The later is what I was responding to when I said "It is none of your business." As I understand things, the former is the business of the members, whereas the later isn't.

...The Church is a missionary church. It is an evangelizing Church. We want everyone to join it. I think the Church needs to be able to provide some assurance that when it comes to the strong impact the Church will have on a prospective member's life (including the prospect of lifelong tithes), the Church is a demonstrably competent and honest steward of its own affairs.

I really don't think that such assurances are or ought to be a factor for joining the Church or not. Instead, it should come down to whether it is God's will or not, and whether the Church/gospel will do for a person what it is designed and intended to do--i.e. bring them to Christ and enable them to become like him. If an investigator expressed concern about getting such assurances before deciding to join, this would signal to me that they don't yet understand what the Church is really all about, how it works, and their role within the Church, and so it may be wise to go back over certain aspects of the missionary lessons in order to correct this possible mis-perception.

But, that may just be me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Most people here are probably not aware — perhaps no one other than I so far — that cwald is doing copy-and-pastes of comments from individuals on this board, posting them on MDB in a longtime thread devoted to derision of those who post here.

Most disturbing to me is that he applied a vulgar epithet to calmoriah, someone I respect and regard highly, someone very even-tempered and fair and who in no way deserves such treatment.

And that is making it personal!

For some critics, hypocrisy seems to be a lifestyle--in part because of their seeming disinclination for honest and accurate introspection.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 13, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

One should note, perhaps, that the Person for Whom the Church acts as fiduciary is not, frankly, the members . . . it is Him Who is its Founder.

This cannot be stress enough.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Apparently not, since we are told explicitly that not tithing funds are not used towards the Church's for-profit ventures.

From page 5 of the article: "McMullin insists that not one penny of tithing goes to the church’s for-profit endeavors".

Here we have an explicit statement from a person in a position to know.

Unfortunately for your argument, that statement flatly refutes the spun-candy fairy tales and fanciful speculation you've been pushing.

I was aware of that statement, and was holding it in reserve to see just how deep of a hole Analytics was willing to dig for himself. Now you've gone and spoiled all the fun. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm not convinced that "used towards" is as all-encompassing as you think it is. Here are the questions that I have (with my answers in italics; if you disagree with my answers, please tell me which ones):

1- If tithing is by far their main source of revenue for running the church, are they going to budget conservatively and "live within their means"? yes

2- Will they sometimes save some tithing money for a rainy day? yes

3- Will they invest their rainy day fund in a way that generates a good, yet safe return? yes

4- Does investing in a corporation entail "using money towards" the specific, individual projects of that corporation? No(!); from the perspective of the church's books, the money is classified as tithing money and is being saved in assets that produce income and have growth potential. From the church's perspective, the money isn't being used for anything and is simply being saved in a way that allows it go grow. From the point of view of the corporation in which its invested, the corporation has a fiduciary responsibility to run their business well and make a profit for their shareholders. The money they use is simply the business's capital—it isn't 401(k) money or pension money or a somebody's rainy-day-fund money or even a church's tithing money. It is simply the business's capital.

My point in 4 doesn't change if the corporation in which the church invests happens to have no investors other than the church itself.

I'm still not clear on what you do with this quotation from the article:

McMullin insists that not one penny of tithing goes to the church’s for-profit endeavors.

Are you saying McMullin is lying here? Was he misquoted in the article? Does he not know as much as you do about what the Church does with its money? What are you saying?

To the extent that McMullin can be considered an authoritative spokesman, this does seem very clearly to contradict your earlier assertion that you are only taking the Church at its word.

And by the way, I just gave you another rep point by mistake. Gotta stop doing that.

Edited July 13, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Oh, you mean the thread from two-three weeks ago...the weekend when I signed up here, and got treated like crap because the folks here didn't know "what side I was on" and I "confused them?" I was civil. The folks over here were not...mostly Selek...and i don't apologize for my comments about him at MDB. .

Calmariah...yeah. she is okay. I do apologize for that.

Anyway, I thought that was in the past. Why Me invited me to come back over, and assured me I was not "black balled." I did, I have been civil and asked a few questions, made a few comments...mostly just lurking. I have attended church three straight weeks in a row now...in spite of how I am treated by the faithful internet mormons. I have not made my comments personal attacks...for the most part I just have a different perceptive and opinion. I wish you folks would do the same.

I see I've come in late on this episode.

I admit I don't look in on that board very often, and when I did just now, I was so shocked I didn't think to check the dates on the posts.

But if you say this is in the past, I'm willing to leave it at that, except to say that civility is not a compartmental thing, that it includes refraining from scurrying over to a board that people don't frequent or contribute to and then bad-mouthing them on that board.

Suggesting that the Church's detailed financial records are neither your business nor mine seems mild by comparison.

[Analytics]

I'm still not clear on what you do with this quotation from the article:

Are you saying McMullin is lying here? Was he misquoted in the article? Does he not know as much as you do about what the Church does with its money? What are you saying?

To the extent that McMullin can be considered an authoritative spokesman, this does seem very clearly to contradict your earlier assertion that you are only taking the Church at its word.

I'm not saying he was lying, and I'm not saying he was misquoted. What I'm saying is that what he said and what I said don't contradict each other. Perhaps you need a sophisticated view of finance to see that? In any case, all I'm doing is accusing the church of living within its means, saving money, and putting the savings to productive use. If you don't think the church manages tithing revenue this way, that is your prerogative.

[wenglund]

Fine... I did not make it personal. Saying that is "none of my business." That is making it personal.

I wanted to give you some time to see if you would come to your senses and rightly accept personal responsibility.

However, given that it has been more than 18 hours since you edited your original post, it appears that you are in denial. So, let me do you the favor of enlightening you as to how you did, in fact, make it personal.

Here is the question you asked that I had responded to: "Can anyone here just explain to me, in simple terms, without getting personal and throwing me under the bus, why me as a tithe payer, cannot go into SLC HQ and ask for a church finance statement? I could do that for almost any other church, non profit, or government entity. Why will the church not tell me how my tithing funds are being used?"

Please look very carefully at the bolded pronouns which identify the primary subject of your questions. Do you see that they make your question specific to you PERSONALLY? Do you now see that by asking the question PERSONALLY about you, then you did, in fact make it PERSONAL? This means that it was you who made this personal, and I simply responded personally as the question was asked. If you didn't want this issue to become personally to you, then you shouldn't have asked the question personally about you.

Now, I realize that by pointing out your glaring mistake I open myself up to illegitimate blame for allegedly turning people off to the Church. But, I suppose this is bound to happen regardless of what I do. Oh well...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cwald]

I see I've come in late on this episode.

I admit I don't look in on that board very often, and when I did just now, I was so shocked I didn't think to check the dates on the posts.

But if you say this is in the past, I'm willing to leave it at that, except to say that civility is not a compartmental thing, that it includes refraining from scurrying over to a board that people don't frequent or contribute to and then bad-mouthing them on that board.

Suggesting that the Church's detailed financial records are neither your business nor mine seems mild by comparison.

Fair enough.

I was pissed...and I was not treated well here three weeks ago...I was told to consider this "biology class and that all the new people should expect to get dissected"...decided to spend my time at MDB instead.

[ERayR]

I'm not saying he was lying, and I'm not saying he was misquoted. What I'm saying is that what he said and what I said don't contradict each other. Perhaps you need a sophisticated view of finance to see that? In any case, all I'm doing is accusing the church of living within its means, saving money, and putting the savings to productive use. If you don't think the church manages tithing revenue this way, that is your prerogative.

All I am saying the church does not manage their charitable donations money to have a surplus to put into for profit ventures. The church allocates charitable income to projects central to their purpose and mission. While they may "park" funds for a time as they are accumulating for a project it is not for purchasing not for profit companies.