Duncan Posted June 13, 2015 Posted June 13, 2015 I recall a Seventy coming here and he said that tithing/fast offerings generated in a specific country tends to stay in that country and any excess spills over to wherever it's needed. So, a prevailing theory is that is why the city I live in is getting a Temple. The money has to go somewhere and why not eh?
Storm Rider Posted June 13, 2015 Posted June 13, 2015 Bishop Burton explained to a group of bishops in our stake a few years ago that there is only one account in the Church. All money (tithing, fast offerings, business profit, PEF, humanitarian, etc.) all goes into one account in reality. For accounting purposes, there are different categories on paper, but as he put it, "there is only one checking account, with about 100,000 signatories worldwide." This was a specific answer to *my* hypothetical question of what money would be used to cover a fast offering disbursement on January 2, when Sunday isn't until January 6. Would tithing temporarily "cover" this until fast offerings were collected on Sunday? He said that this is a misunderstanding of how it works, and answered as above. One account is not what I have learned or been explained. Was he speaking literally or figuratively? If you pay tithing in the United Arab Emirates then the funds must stay in the UAE and cannot be sent elsewhere. Further, those funds have to be spent only in the UAE. It would seem this reality alone would lend evidence that Burton was speaking figuratively. 1
The Nehor Posted June 13, 2015 Posted June 13, 2015 In this case, there really shouldn't be any argument as to whether money is fungible as this isn't a concept created by Dehlin or Kelly. This is a bedrock economic principle taught at every reputable university (and even BYU-I ... sorry, I couldn't help myself). And so, the statement that "no tithing funds were used in ..." is factually false, but I think of it more as a term of art, like "activity rates in the Church." It's arguable whether attending once every, what, three months is really "active," but we know what is meant by the term. Likewise, I think we all know what is meant by the "no tithing funds" phrase (ie, "We wrote this check from a different account"). I can live with that.No, it works in this case. It just means that allocations to this project are small enough that tithing funds are not needed. You can argue that fast offerings are fungible so it does not matter which line item you use except that this money is tracked and made available to local leaders based on how much is collected.This kind of accounting can be deceptive like states saying lotto funds go to education. While technically true this does not mean education is being helped by increased lotto playing unless education increases by the amount lotto revenue increases. This is found not to be the case in every state making the claim. For the church to fall under the same deceptive advertising with their claim it would need to be found that allocations to "tithing expenditures" fell below what was contributed to the tithing fund.
bluebell Posted June 13, 2015 Posted June 13, 2015 Bishop Burton explained to a group of bishops in our stake a few years ago that there is only one account in the Church. All money (tithing, fast offerings, business profit, PEF, humanitarian, etc.) all goes into one account in reality. For accounting purposes, there are different categories on paper, but as he put it, "there is only one checking account, with about 100,000 signatories worldwide."This was a specific answer to *my* hypothetical question of what money would be used to cover a fast offering disbursement on January 2, when Sunday isn't until January 6. Would tithing temporarily "cover" this until fast offerings were collected on Sunday? He said that this is a misunderstanding of how it works, and answered as above.This means that no one can guarantee that tithing money wasn't used for the mall though, right?
Popular Post Danzo Posted June 13, 2015 Popular Post Posted June 13, 2015 (edited) I wonder if any one here knows anything about funds based accounting. In a funds based accounting system (used by non profits and governments) there isn't a big pot and funds aren't fungible. Most people don't understand this and complain when local government spends money on a silly art project and neglects road maintainence. What they don't understand is that likely the funds for the art projects were restricted and couldn't be used for roads. People can get in big trouble for misusing restricted funds. Edited June 13, 2015 by Danzo 5
mbh26 Posted June 14, 2015 Posted June 14, 2015 For example, even though parents of a missionary now pool their contributions into one missionary fund (unlike in the past when they funded their specific missionary). Tithing funds are not allocated for missionary operations, unless there is an extraordinary need of some kind (building a missionary headquarters somewhere, for example). It's hard for me to conceive how each missionary paying $425/month or whatever it costs now covers what it costs to be in the mission. I doubt many of the native missionaries nor their wards could afford to pay more than a few dollars a month if anything and that was half of the missionaries. Even if they all paid, surely the $425/month couldn't cover the average rent, food, utilities, medical expenses, airline travel, MTC instructor pay, mission presidency living expenses, cars, etc.
Mystery Meat Posted June 14, 2015 Posted June 14, 2015 All money is fungible. To say that no tithing funds were used is like saying that my kids only pee in the water in the shallow end of our pool. If profits from Church-owned businesses are used for one purpose, then that money must be made up from some other source (eg, investment revenue, real estate rents, tithing, etc).That being said, I'm in line with Team Church on this one. I trust Church leaders to spend the money wisely. And while I reserve the right to question their decisions, I haven't been persuaded as of yet that any such decisions have been clearly improper. Of course, I come from a tradition where misuse of church funds is so endemic that if this church used tithing funds to build Mount Prophetmore, I'd take solace that at least, it wasn't a Rolls Royce or hush money for the pastor's mistress. Sigh. I repeat no tithing funds were used, NOR were the funds used ever sourced in tithing. Here is the simple "how". The Church has been in Utah for a long time. When they got here, what is now Utah was Mexico. The early pioneers had a lot of land at their disposal. The Church got a lot of this land (didn't pay for it). A lot of this land was used in a way that generated revenue. This revenue was used to grow for profit businesses. That is the very simple answer. Rest assured, this isn't a matter of "money is fungible." Never, not even back in 1847, was the money ever tithing dollars. Now you know. 1
Mystery Meat Posted June 14, 2015 Posted June 14, 2015 Most likely not from tithing. Most church businesses are descendants from early church businesses set up around the time they came to Utah. Tithing payment was sporadic at best before President Snow. Some of the businesses were set up by investors with the church running it. Others were donated. Later the church sold many of these businesses off. I would not be surprised if no tithing money ever went to church businesses but I suppose it is possible it happened in the past. If that offends you be offended.I have no idea about interest. If you want to strain at that gnat have fun. The Nehor is wise. I can (and have) attest to this. But this is the truth. The for profit arm of the Church has never been funded by tithing dollars. 2
Mystery Meat Posted June 14, 2015 Posted June 14, 2015 And so, the statement that "no tithing funds were used in ..." is factually false,..... Likewise, I think we all know what is meant by the "no tithing funds" phrase (ie, "We wrote this check from a different account"). I can live with that. The statement is not false. Tithing never got close to being used. For example, Church wants to start a business. It has land that it never paid for (nobody owned it when they go to Salt Lake Valley). They use the land to secure third party financing. The company started with said financing become profitable. Loans are paid back. The business is either sold, or it revenues are used to buy new land/start other businesses. Over the past 160 years the Church has gotten very good at investing. Newb, you now know how this works. For you to repeat anything like what you have said above is now just being willfully ignorant.
Mystery Meat Posted June 14, 2015 Posted June 14, 2015 Bishop Burton explained to a group of bishops in our stake a few years ago that there is only one account in the Church. All money (tithing, fast offerings, business profit, PEF, humanitarian, etc.) all goes into one account in reality. For accounting purposes, there are different categories on paper, but as he put it, "there is only one checking account, with about 100,000 signatories worldwide." This was a specific answer to *my* hypothetical question of what money would be used to cover a fast offering disbursement on January 2, when Sunday isn't until January 6. Would tithing temporarily "cover" this until fast offerings were collected on Sunday? He said that this is a misunderstanding of how it works, and answered as above. I can tell you for a fact that business profits are not co-mingled with non-for profit funds. That would be a big problem for tax exempt status. 3
Robert F. Smith Posted June 14, 2015 Posted June 14, 2015 This means that no one can guarantee that tithing money wasn't used for the mall though, right?Not at all. If the Church leaders say that no tithing funds were used, I think we ought to give them the benefit of the doubt. There are plenty of for-profit funds available, which are subject to taxation, by the way. The IRS knows how to distinguish types of funds from each other. 2
Stargazer Posted June 14, 2015 Posted June 14, 2015 All money is fungible. To say that no tithing funds were used is like saying that my kids only pee in the water in the shallow end of our pool. If profits from Church-owned businesses are used for one purpose, then that money must be made up from some other source (eg, investment revenue, real estate rents, tithing, etc).That being said, I'm in line with Team Church on this one. I trust Church leaders to spend the money wisely. And while I reserve the right to question their decisions, I haven't been persuaded as of yet that any such decisions have been clearly improper. Of course, I come from a tradition where misuse of church funds is so endemic that if this church used tithing funds to build Mount Prophetmore, I'd take solace that at least, it wasn't a Rolls Royce or hush money for the pastor's mistress. Interesting take on it. "Fungibility" is kind of slippery. Let's say my wife earns some money that we have agreed will be used only for our son's college education, and my earnings will be used for everything else, We put both our earnings into the single checking account, so our funds are commingled. But we have set up our accounting software so that X dollars will only be used for college, and each time the wife adds her money to the kitty, the X figure is increased accordingly. In this case we have complete fungibility: there is no way to tell who provided a given dollar in the kitty, and no way to tell which particular dollar belongs to X or Y. But when the Total T reaches a value equal to X, then we know we have to wait until MY next payday before we can spend any money at all. But if we deposit my wife's money in a separate subaccount off the main account, then the fungibility has decreased markedly. And if we keep the college fund money in a money-market account all by its lonesome, then it is 0% fungible. Thus the source of funds can be completely controlled, and the money for City Creek can be certified NOT to have come out of Tithing funds. I am happy enough with City Creek, and if someone gets a burr under his saddle over it, well then I can tell him that if the Church didn't have funds separate from those raised via tithing, then City Creek would still be an urban eyesore today. Now, with BitCoin, every BitCoin has a globally unique identifier, and they are decidedly NOT fungible. I wonder if the Church accepts BitCoins?
Robert F. Smith Posted June 14, 2015 Posted June 14, 2015 ................................................... Rest assured, this isn't a matter of "money is fungible." Never, not even back in 1847, was the money ever tithing dollars. ................................................ You and the Newby apparently don't understand fungibility: "The state of being interchangeable. For example, money has fungibility because there is no difference between one dollar and another dollar." In other words, all the money can be pooled, but it is spent according to budget from particular accounts. The budgeted accounts are in turn specifically tied to donations of particular types. Thus, tithing, humanitarian, and fast-offering donations may not be used in for-profit operations, and each must be separately accounted for -- and later audited. Just because all greenbacks look alike, and can be spent alike, doesn't mean that the donation accounts cannot be distinguished. For an accountant, that is child's play, and for the IRS feloniously serious stuff. Thus, even if Martin Harris had taken that mortgage money he obtained on his farm in order to print the 1830 Book of Mormon and placed it a pool of money including tithing, it would not therefore become tithing money. Only accounting for the spending of that amount of money (which was donated for a specific purpose) later tells us the source and use of the funds, which did not include tithing. The same applies to United Firm/ United Order contributions via deed. The idea that everything is tithing is absurd. Anyone wishing to understand historical LDS Church economics, ought to read the works of Leonard Arrington. That was his specialty. 3
Teancum Posted June 14, 2015 Posted June 14, 2015 (edited) God should simply have let the area around the headquarters of His Church degenerate into a slum! After all, that's basically what's happened in the core of other major metropolitan areas. What's so special about Salt Lake? Was SLC falling apart? It did not look that way when I visited there before City Creek. But I don't live there.As for others cities I am not sure how much you travel but I do some and have tbeen to many major cities. Of course they all have their rough areas but other parts of their city, especially the main downtown areas are often quite nice and upbeat and some are even being renewed. Some I have seen lately include Cleveland, Colombus, Chicago...very nice, Philedelphia, D.C. Denver, San Diego. All have some great downtown areas. Edited June 14, 2015 by Teancum
Stargazer Posted June 14, 2015 Posted June 14, 2015 (edited) So you're drawing a line of difference between "tithing" funds and all other "consecrated" funds. Good distinction. It's important to remember though that the church has one BIG general fund into which all donations go. It appears they are then funnelled into investments and then back out into separate ledgers for tithing, perpetual education, fast offerings etc. So again, the fungibility issue is salient. Lets say, for example, that the church makes a large purchase of land from their ledger for business acquisitions and real estate. They then send money to a child abuse advocacy group in Utah from a Humanitarian Aid fund. In each case the overall resources of the church have been diminished leaving tithing funds to be used for purposes that may have otherwise been paid for out of the RE acquisitions fund. It's just shuffling money around from different categories. There's nothing wrong with that but it's important to understand that's what they're doing, so saying "No tithing funds were used on this project" only means that tithing funds had to be used on some other project. No, it doesn't. I will not repeat what my reply to mormonnewb's post, so just read it. It's in post #37. The salient point is this: whether all the money is kept in one grabbag or several, as long as we distinguish how much of the kitty originated from one source or another, and what it may or may not be used for, we can definitively keep a separation. OK, I'm going to say further about this. Besides being a finance clerk in a singles branch for five years, and having served as ward clerk for another eight, I have worked as a computer programmer in the Accounting Division of Washington State's Office of Financial Management for many years. The state has strict rules about the taxes and excises that are collected, and what they can be used for. Some taxes go into the General Fund, and can be used to pay for most things, but some taxes and excises go into specialized funds and they can be used only for certain specialized things. For example, gasoline taxes go into the State Highway Fund and can be used to pay for state road maintenance, the salaries of State Patrol troopers, etc., but they may not be used to pay for the new computer on my desk. Tobacco excise taxes are likewise limited in what they can be used to pay for. For example, they are not allowed to use Tobacco excise taxes to repair the Tivoli Fountain on the State Capitol Campus. This whole separation of funds concept is widely known and used in Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), and for you to argue that "saying "No tithing funds were used on this project" only means that tithing funds had to be used on some other project." is pure claptrap. You can perhaps claim that the Church is lying about the use of tithing funds. However, I am sure they run the finances according to GAAP. Edited June 14, 2015 by Stargazer 1
readstoomuch Posted June 14, 2015 Posted June 14, 2015 I do believe that no tithing money was used for CityCreek. I think the big argument was about where the money came from to start the businesses that provided the capital. The Church was essentially broke in the 1890s and if not for business people like heber j grant who obtained a line of credit in New York for the Church, it would have imploded. I would predict that a good share of the business was created after 1893 when a great economic collapse took place. I think enough of the money came from Mormon endeavors that it is reasonable to ask if the businesses use their money wisely. I think that City Creek was still a needed investment, but I am more for workfare and not welfare. Those who look to welfare like programs might disagree with me.
Popular Post Robert F. Smith Posted June 14, 2015 Popular Post Posted June 14, 2015 Was SLC falling apart? It did not look that way when I visited there before City Creek. But I don't live there.As for others cities I am not sure how much you travel but I do some and have tbeen to many major cities. Of course they all have their rough areas but other parts of their city, especially the main downtown areas are often quite nice and upbeat and some are even being renewed. Some I have seen lately include Cleveland, Colombus, Chicago...very nice, Philedelphia, D.C. Denver, San Diego. All have some great downtown areas.Cities with nice downtowns didn't get that way by accident. The City Fathers had to have taken a strong interest in keeping them that way or in turning them around. Where the initiative is not taken, and where no one cares, the results are there for all to see. Businessmen and Church leaders in SLC have each taken a long-term interest in keeping the city vibrant. City Creek is by no means the first project to keep the downtown beautiful and welcoming. This has been going on for decades. I'm sure you have heard the one about St Peter giving a tour of heaven to some new arrivals. During the tour someone asks about Hell, and Pete points down to it, and someone notes that it is beautiful and green. Says Pete: 'It's those damned Mormons again." Get the point? Mormons live like exaltation really matters, but at the same time as though what really matters is right in the here and now. We have our feet in both worlds, and that is as it should be. 5
Okrahomer Posted June 14, 2015 Posted June 14, 2015 (edited) Was SLC falling apart? It did not look that way when I visited there before City Creek. But I don't live there.http://www.utahstories.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/downtown_merchants_construction.htmThis article has some of the details of the deterioration of the area nearest Temple Square--citing in particlular the negative impact of the opening of the Gateway development. Edited June 14, 2015 by Okrahomer
Duncan Posted June 14, 2015 Posted June 14, 2015 Was SLC falling apart? It did not look that way when I visited there before City Creek. But I don't live there.As for others cities I am not sure how much you travel but I do some and have tbeen to many major cities. Of course they all have their rough areas but other parts of their city, especially the main downtown areas are often quite nice and upbeat and some are even being renewed. Some I have seen lately include Cleveland, Colombus, Chicago...very nice, Philedelphia, D.C. Denver, San Diego. All have some great downtown areas. I have heard a variety of reasons why they built it. One is it was Pres. Tanner's idea and hes been gone now like 30 years and another reason is the US Government told SLC to clean it up and so they are trying to do that, are any of these legit? who knows!
rongo Posted June 14, 2015 Posted June 14, 2015 You are overlooking the fact that fast offering accounts are independently controlled by the local bishop. He spends them as he wishes, and must ask the congregation for more if the amount gets too low. Church HQ does not contribute to it. No tithing funds used. This isn't true at all. My initial question to Bishop Burton involved a hypothetical (which happens) where fast offering funds are spent before fast offerings are collected. He emphasized that, since all Church revenue actually goes into one account, there are never "insufficient funds --- nor are internal transfers done to "cover a float." The fact is that many North American wards and some stakes run a fast offering deficit (spend more in fast offerings than they collect). These checks (for housing, transportation, utilities, etc.) are honored by the Church, even when insufficient fast offerings have been collected. 1
rongo Posted June 14, 2015 Posted June 14, 2015 One account is not what I have learned or been explained. Was he speaking literally or figuratively? If you pay tithing in the United Arab Emirates then the funds must stay in the UAE and cannot be sent elsewhere. Further, those funds have to be spent only in the UAE. It would seem this reality alone would lend evidence that Burton was speaking figuratively. He was speaking very literally (he placed great emphasis on their only being one actual account, but with multiple categories within --- but that all fast offering checks would be honored even if there were insufficient donations to "cover" them, and without internal "transfers" to make it balance between categories), but you make a good point about countries that insist that all donations remain in that country. Given that, I think that he was specifically addressing North American donations (the lion's share of money donated).
rongo Posted June 14, 2015 Posted June 14, 2015 This means that no one can guarantee that tithing money wasn't used for the mall though, right?No, I don't think so. There are internal *categories*, such as tithing, business profit, fast offering, PEF, etc. From that standpoint, one can truthfully say that no tithing funds payed for A or B if category E was earmarked for this or that. Granted, it's just a paper distinction. As Bishop Burton stressed, there is one and only one checking account for the Church.
rongo Posted June 14, 2015 Posted June 14, 2015 (edited) I can tell you for a fact that business profits are not co-mingled with non-for profit funds. That would be a big problem for tax exempt status.They wouldn't be "co-mingled" because of their internal accounting category designation. Business profits remain "business profits" on the books. Bishop Burton asked us to imagine how complicated it would be if there were a separate physical account for each category, with the need to do constant transfers between accounts so that they "balance." Edited June 14, 2015 by rongo
mikegriffith1 Posted June 14, 2015 Posted June 14, 2015 Income from church owned businesses and sometimes from direct donations from members for a specific purpose. That's my understanding too. But, how the Lord chooses to use any donations--tithing, fast offering, or whatever--is ultimately up to him. If the prophet felt that some tithing money should be used for an investment, I would be fine with that. In fact, I would not spend a second trying to second guess such a decision, since that does not fall within my stewardship. I know the Church is led by a living prophet, and so I am not worried about how our donations are spent. This is not to say that the Lord would never allow a prophet to make an honest mistake in using church money as a learning and teaching experience, but I think such instances are very rare and are not something I need to worry about anyway.
bluebell Posted June 14, 2015 Posted June 14, 2015 No, I don't think so. There are internal *categories*, such as tithing, business profit, fast offering, PEF, etc. From that standpoint, one can truthfully say that no tithing funds payed for A or B if category E was earmarked for this or that. Granted, it's just a paper distinction. As Bishop Burton stressed, there is one and only one checking account for the Church. This is what i meant in my first post then. Not that the church has a hundred different checking accounts, but rather that the money is allocated into separate funds and used accordingly. If all the church's money really was put into one big general fund as some seem to believe it would be a nightmare to budget and taxes and accounting would be practically impossible.
Recommended Posts