cinepro Posted June 14, 2015 Posted June 14, 2015 (edited) Whoever came up with the idea of "non-tithing funds" should get a statue erected to their honor in Temple square, and the BYU Accounting school named after them. It is the most preposterous idea to say that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has some portion of funds, however acquired, that are somehow exempt from the spiritual mandates of "tithing" that I suspect the only reason most members thinks it makes sense is because the Church says "non-tithing funds" in such a way that we think such a thing is supposed to make sense, and so we just go along with it. "Oh, they said 'Non-tithing' funds, so such a thing much exist, and it must be okay for them to use those funds in the way they did because they just said it was." The odd thing is that if it is possible for the Lord's church to have a pool of money that is exempt from the conditions of "tithing", then it must also be possible for us to also have "non-tithing funds" which are exempt from the law of tithing. Yes, I pay a full tithe, but I have several investments that were made with non-tithing funds, so they are exempt from the law of tithing and I use them to make other investments. These investments have been especially valuable in allowing me to make improvements to my house, and these improvements have driven up the property value not just for me but for my surrounding neighbors, so who can argue that it's not a holy purpose? Edited June 14, 2015 by cinepro 3
bluebell Posted June 14, 2015 Posted June 14, 2015 Whoever came up with the idea of "non-tithing funds" should get a statue erected to their honor in Temple square, and the BYU Accounting school named after them. It is the most preposterous idea to say that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has some portion of funds, however acquired, that are somehow exempt from the spiritual mandates of "tithing" that I suspect the only reason most members thinks it makes sense is because the Church says "non-tithing funds" in such a way that we think such a thing is supposed to make sense, and so we just go along with it. "Oh, they said 'Non-tithing' funds, so such a thing much exist, and it must be okay for them to use those funds in the way they did because they just said it was." The odd thing is that if it is possible for the Lord's church to have a pool of money that is exempt from the conditions of "tithing", then it must also be possible for us to also have "non-tithing funds" which are exempt from the law of tithing. Yes, I pay a full tithe, but I have several investments that were made with non-tithing funds, so they are exempt from the law of tithing and I use them to make other investments. These investments have been especially valuable in allowing me to make improvements to my house, and these improvements have driven up the property value not just for me but for my surrounding neighbors, so who can argue that it's not a holy purpose? I'm not exactly sure i'm understanding you. When they say 'non tithing funds' they mean that money that people paid as tithing was not used. Given that, what 'conditions of tithing' that you are talking about? Tithing is not paid on tithing and i can't think of any other conditions you might be referring to.
JAHS Posted June 14, 2015 Posted June 14, 2015 I'm not exactly sure i'm understanding you. When they say 'non tithing funds' they mean that money that people paid as tithing was not used. Given that, what 'conditions of tithing' that you are talking about? Tithing is not paid on tithing and i can't think of any other conditions you might be referring to.Not sure what he is saying either, but I think he means that any money the church aquires, be it tithing, FO, humanitarian aid, returns on investments, etc. it all falls under the general category of funds that are to only be used for a holy purpose to advance the kingdom of God. In this sense it all should be considered the same as tithing. Am I wrong?
Stone holm Posted June 14, 2015 Author Posted June 14, 2015 Given that during the Presidency of Lorenzo Snow, the Church was essentially broke, I think we could probably discount the idea that the source of the funds predates that. I suspect we could argue that the funds came from the days when the Church lived the Order of Enoch, but that raises a whole host of other questions. Then again, we might argue that it is really money from special donations like the Marriot Center or Nauvoo. But I suspect the most coherent assertion is we are not considering interest on tithing as tithing. BTW I don't have a problem with slum removal which is what the mall was really about, just feel a little uncomfortable with the no tithing claim.
mfbukowski Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 Another thread got locked before I could ask a question, so will ask it now. One frequently hears the statement that tithing funds were not used for such and such an investment. And while I like to think that is true, I have to pause and think...if not tithing then what funds were used? Surely not Fast Offerings, too many those are even more sacred as to their dedicated use, and surely not missionary funds. So, what are these mysterious "not tithing" funds?Have you ever read the parable of the talents?
mfbukowski Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 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.Dang. I must be losing it. I am actually starting to like you. 1
mfbukowski Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 (edited) 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. On the other hand, a bishop can give a food order to someone, and that is paid for by central Church welfare operations (ranches, packing plants.storehouses, etc.). All businesses and governments pool their money into one general fund, because all money is fungible. However, payments for specific expenses can only be paid out of that fund based on a controlling and preapproved budget. If the money has not been preapproved, it cannot be spent. Governments and churches generally operate on specific budgets (as does the LDS Church), allocating resources based on the purpose for which they were contributed. 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). When someone at Church HQ says that no tithing funds were used, it is very likely true.Additionally there are specific allocations for each ward and stake within each category of tithing, welfare, missionary, etc. If a local bishop "runs over" his allocation for a specific fund, say for example welfare, it would come first from the ward fund, and then from the stake fund, and then theoretically if the stake fund was too low, it would come from the general church fund for that purpose. At each stage, there would typically be a phone call describing the problem between leaders about why the funds were necessary If a bishop runs out of welfare funds and the stake covers the check (so to speak) that would be transparent for the welfare recipient, of course the person who needed the rent money or whatever would give the check to the landlord and never realize that the money actually came from the stake. But I can guarantee that the bishop would have some explaining to do to the stake president. But it happens. Certain wards are "rich" and others are "poor", that is a fact of life. Accounting for these funds is pretty rigorous; audits are done twice a year and transactions are picked at random for detailed examination by people called by the stake to do so, often former bishops themselves who know the "ropes" and the problems involved in the "bishop business" Rent payments can be particularly tricky because typically people do not get a "bill" for their rent, yet the church essentially requires something from the landlord to show the correct rent amount, any partial payments made, and the balance that the recipient is not able to pay. The process is not fun for anyone, but it is a necessary one and is handled efficiently for the most part and the Lord's money requires careful accounting. The best solution is usually for the bishop to give a food order for the amount approximately equal to the rent amount required, so that the recipient can use their cash for the rent and get the food from the storehouse instead of giving them cash for their rent. The accounting is easier and it is more cost effective for the church that way. The church is very good about coming up with solutions to these problems which require recipients to learn proper budgeting themselves. It's the old "teach a man to fish" thing. Edited June 15, 2015 by mfbukowski 2
Popular Post Tacenda Posted June 15, 2015 Popular Post Posted June 15, 2015 MF, just last night I spoke with some friends who years ago lost a baby after it had been alive only a few hours. The male friend told how their bishop called him in and asked about their finances. The bishop knew how costly a funeral and hospital bills can be. My friends didn't want to use the church, but this bishop told them to bring in some of their bills to help lesson their burden, the bishop knew they'd been faithful tithe payers. They've never forgotten, and ever since have had a strong testimony of tithing and paying bills on time. They dilligently paid a $10,000 hospital bill until it was paid off. But the bishop offering help at the beginning helped bouy them up to paying on a bill that tied into the loss of their baby girl 6
mfbukowski Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 MF, just last night I spoke with some friends who years ago lost a baby after it had been alive only a few hours. The male friend told how their bishop called him in and asked about their finances. The bishop knew how costly a funeral and hospital bills can be. My friends didn't want to use the church, but this bishop told them to bring in some of their bills to help lesson their burden, the bishop knew they'd been faithful tithe payers. They've never forgotten, and ever since have had a strong testimony of tithing and paying bills on time. They dilligently paid a $10,000 hospital bill until it was paid off. But the bishop offering help at the beginning helped bouy them up to paying on a bill that tied into the loss of their baby girlTHAT is exactly how it is supposed to work!
HappyJackWagon Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 This isn't true at all. My initial question to Bishop Burton involved a hypothetical (which happens) where fast offering funds are spent before fast offerings are collected. He emphasized that, since all Church revenue actually goes into one account, there are never "insufficient funds --- nor are internal transfers done to "cover a float." The fact is that many North American wards and some stakes run a fast offering deficit (spend more in fast offerings than they collect). These checks (for housing, transportation, utilities, etc.) are honored by the Church, even when insufficient fast offerings have been collected.Rongo is exactly right about this. Still, I acknowledge that there is substantial confusion about this issue. Why? Becuase the church isn't transparent in its financial operations. It used to be until the 1960's and then they stopped. It's unfortunate because now donors are left to trust blindly in the organization. This doesn't happen with other charities. We certainly don't need to know every detail but it would be helpful to see some general information. Income-$Xxxx Collected a. tithing b. fast offerings c. Humanitarian aid d. etc.$xxxx Income from Business assets Expenditures-$Xxxx spent a. buildings (chapels and temples) b. Fast offerings c. Humanitarian aid d. Business e. salaries f. etc. It doesn't have to be overly detailed but some general information would be helpful. Think about the way we describe how tithing funds and fast offering funds are used. Wouldn't it be nice to know that we are accurate in our descriptions instead of finding out we spend 45% of all income on church employee salaries (for example). Other charities report this kind of information. The church does not.
JAHS Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 Rongo is exactly right about this. Still, I acknowledge that there is substantial confusion about this issue. Why? Becuase the church isn't transparent in its financial operations. It used to be until the 1960's and then they stopped. It's unfortunate because now donors are left to trust blindly in the organization. This doesn't happen with other charities. We certainly don't need to know every detail but it would be helpful to see some general information. Income-$Xxxx Collected a. tithing b. fast offerings c. Humanitarian aid d. etc.$xxxx Income from Business assets Expenditures-$Xxxx spent a. buildings (chapels and temples) b. Fast offerings c. Humanitarian aid d. Business e. salaries f. etc. It doesn't have to be overly detailed but some general information would be helpful. Think about the way we describe how tithing funds and fast offering funds are used. Wouldn't it be nice to know that we are accurate in our descriptions instead of finding out we spend 45% of all income on church employee salaries (for example). Other charities report this kind of information. The church does not.I don't understand how some general information would be helpful or even nice to know. For what purpose? If they do what you say and you don't like the numbers are you going to quit donating? They must be handling the money right because the church is certainly moving forward in a positive way. That's good enough for me. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 I don't understand how some general information would be helpful or even nice to know. For what purpose? If they do what you say and you don't like the numbers are you going to quit donating? They must be handling the money right because the church is certainly moving forward in a positive way. That's good enough for me. Yes. If I see that $1,000,000 is donated to Humanitarian Aid but only $500,000 is used for Humanitarian Aid then I would find a different charity to donate to.If I see that $1,000,000 is collected in tithing dollars and that 50-60% of that go toward paying employees I may view my donation differently. Other charities report on their $$$ efficiency so it is reasonable to expect the church to do the same. If they can't/won't or if they are less efficient than other charities then it would seem reasonable to give charitable donations to a more efficient organization. You might say, "But you can't do that with tithing". Let's think about that. The law of tithing requires we return 10% to the Lord. Is the organizational church the only entity on earth able to utilize $$ for a cause worthy to the Lord? I don't think so.
JAHS Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 Yes. If I see that $1,000,000 is donated to Humanitarian Aid but only $500,000 is used for Humanitarian Aid then I would find a different charity to donate to.If I see that $1,000,000 is collected in tithing dollars and that 50-60% of that go toward paying employees I may view my donation differently. Other charities report on their $$$ efficiency so it is reasonable to expect the church to do the same. If they can't/won't or if they are less efficient than other charities then it would seem reasonable to give charitable donations to a more efficient organization. You might say, "But you can't do that with tithing". Let's think about that. The law of tithing requires we return 10% to the Lord. Is the organizational church the only entity on earth able to utilize $$ for a cause worthy to the Lord? I don't think so.As an active believing church member I can only see your senario work for perhaps humanitarian aid. Our Prophets and the scriptures tell us to give our tithing and fast offerings to the Church first (D&C 119), not to other organizations, unless you want to give to them in addition to what we give to the Church.
rchorse Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 Yes. If I see that $1,000,000 is donated to Humanitarian Aid but only $500,000 is used for Humanitarian Aid then I would find a different charity to donate to.If I see that $1,000,000 is collected in tithing dollars and that 50-60% of that go toward paying employees I may view my donation differently. Other charities report on their $$$ efficiency so it is reasonable to expect the church to do the same. If they can't/won't or if they are less efficient than other charities then it would seem reasonable to give charitable donations to a more efficient organization. You might say, "But you can't do that with tithing". Let's think about that. The law of tithing requires we return 10% to the Lord. Is the organizational church the only entity on earth able to utilize $$ for a cause worthy to the Lord? I don't think so. All this operates under the assumption that the Church is just another charitable organization, comparable to the Red Cross or Habitat for Humanity. If you view it as the Kingdom of God on the Earth run by revelation through prophets, seers, and revelators, then what other charitable organizations do becomes pretty irrelevant. Not to mention the fact that all the evidence I've ever seen points to the church being dramatically more efficient with donations than the average charity (100% of humanitarian donations go to actual aid, for example). 4
HappyJackWagon Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 Not to mention the fact that all the evidence I've ever seen points to the church being dramatically more efficient with donations than the average charity (100% of humanitarian donations go to actual aid, for example). What is this evidence you speak of?
mormonnewb Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 Not to mention the fact that all the evidence I've ever seen points to the church being dramatically more efficient with donations than the average charity (100% of humanitarian donations go to actual aid, for example). I don't doubt that the Church is more efficient than most charities. Yet, I wish we could get away from statements like the above that are simply untrue by definition. They aren't intentionally false and they certainly aren't meant to mislead, but they cast doubt on the Church's honesty. It is simply not possible for 100% of humanitarian donations to go to actual aid; that is, unless the Church has found a way to transfer money (and in some cases, converting it into actual goods) without paying some kind of transfer fee. Now, THAT would be a miracle! If I donate money online to the Church's fund for the Nepal earthquake survivors (we have one, right?), Visa/MC is going to insist on their "cut" of the donation (as well as FirstData or whomever else handles the credit card processing). Even if I write a check and mail it to the Church, someone (who likely earns a salary) has to take that check out of the envelope and deposit it into the bank (which charges fees, even if hidden through reduced interest rates). And getting that money into the hands of the beneficiaries will entail another set of transfer fees and other costs (even humanitarian aid workers have families to feed too). And let's not consider the sunk costs that go into creating such a fund in the first place. P.S. I just realized that I could be wrong about the above, provided that the Church is willing to "eat" the costs noted above (i.e., for every $100 it receives for humanitarian aid, it adds an additional, say, $5 to cover the costs of getting that money to aid recipients). If that is the case, then kudos for the Church ("You go, Brethren!"), just so long as no one has promised that "no tithing sources" are used for humanitarian aid. 1
cinepro Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 I don't doubt that the Church is more efficient than most charities. Yet, I wish we could get away from statements like the above that are simply untrue by definition. They aren't intentionally false and they certainly aren't meant to mislead, but they cast doubt on the Church's honesty. It is simply not possible for 100% of humanitarian donations to go to actual aid; that is, unless the Church has found a way to transfer money (and in some cases, converting it into actual goods) without paying some kind of transfer fee. Now, THAT would be a miracle! If I donate money online to the Church's fund for the Nepal earthquake survivors (we have one, right?), Visa/MC is going to insist on their "cut" of the donation (as well as FirstData or whomever else handles the credit card processing). Even if I write a check and mail it to the Church, someone (who likely earns a salary) has to take that check out of the envelope and deposit it into the bank (which charges fees, even if hidden through reduced interest rates). And getting that money into the hands of the beneficiaries will entail another set of transfer fees and other costs (even humanitarian aid workers have families to feed too). And let's not consider the sunk costs that go into creating such a fund in the first place. P.S. I just realized that I could be wrong about the above, provided that the Church is willing to "eat" the costs noted above (i.e., for every $100 it receives for humanitarian aid, it adds an additional, say, $5 to cover the costs of getting that money to aid recipients). If that is the case, then kudos for the Church ("You go, Brethren!"), just so long as no one has promised that "no tithing sources" are used for humanitarian aid. Again, this just gets back to the Church creating different types of money and calling it whatever they want. This became official in 2012 with the new Tithing slip:
JAHS Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 What is this evidence you speak of?From the Church Humanitarian website: "Two tenets of humanitarian aid defines Humanitarian Services:1) 100% of every dollar donated is used to help those in need without regard to race, religion, or ethnic origin, and2) Humanitarian Services helps people attain self-sufficiency so they can be self-reliant long after Humanitarian Services departs.In 2013, help was provided to nearly two million people in 132 countries." http://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/humanitarian-services.html One has to assume of course that the church is not lying about this.
HappyJackWagon Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 From the Church Humanitarian website: "Two tenets of humanitarian aid defines Humanitarian Services:1) 100% of every dollar donated is used to help those in need without regard to race, religion, or ethnic origin, and2) Humanitarian Services helps people attain self-sufficiency so they can be self-reliant long after Humanitarian Services departs.In 2013, help was provided to nearly two million people in 132 countries." http://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/humanitarian-services.html One has to assume of course that the church is not lying about this. Or they could say, 100% of Humanitarian Aid donations go to Humanitarian Aid- How? By paying the overhead through tithing funds, thus reducing the tithing efficiency. The money has to come from somewhere? We're back to the argument about fungibility. 1
Jeanne Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 So you're fine with the way the church uses money but you confess to having low standards in this regard? ok. I think the church is wise with it's money and it's great the church is in a strong financial condition. That said, statements like "no tithing funds were used" is a little disengenuous. Like Newb said, funds are fungible and it's difficult to get to the root of funds. Are the funds business proceeds for a business that was started with tithing funds? Who knows? The church doesn't disclose financial details so it's impossible to know how it really does spend its money. A little transparency would go a long ways.Wise? 1
bluebell Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 Or they could say, 100% of Humanitarian Aid donations go to Humanitarian Aid- How? By paying the overhead through tithing funds, thus reducing the tithing efficiency. The money has to come from somewhere? We're back to the argument about fungibility. The church has more avenues of revenue than tithing, fast offerings, and humanitarian aid though. Given that, i'm not sure why we have to assume that the overhead is paid by tithing, especially when they have specifically told us what tithing is used for and overhead is not listed.
Popular Post kimpearson Posted June 15, 2015 Popular Post Posted June 15, 2015 I am a CPA who has actually worked with the Church on money issues. I haven't seen this discussed so I will try to add something to the conversation. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saint has two basic legal entities that it controls. One is the non for profit entity we all identify as the Church. All donations made to the Church through the donation process of each ward and branch go to this non profit entity. This includes tithing, fast offering, missionary, perpetual education fund and humanitarian fund. Members can and do make specific donations to the Church through gifts, wills and estates. All of these funds by law must be kept in the non for profit legal entity. Donations from these funds can be made to other non for profit entities such as the American Red Cross. This non for profit entity does keep some reserve funds that are invested in very conservative investments but would only sustain the operations of the non for profit entity for a very short period of time. The non for profit entity of the Church really does operate on the donations of members. Primary uses are buildings, missionary, education including Church schools and seminaries and fast offerings. The second entity controlled by the Church is a for profit entity that pays taxes like any other for profit business entity. This entity I believe includes mainly land (ranches, farms and urban real estate), investments such as stock and bonds and now days a very limited number of businesses such as Deseret News and KSL radio. The original source of funds for these businesses came primarily from the businesses that the Church established in the late 1800's and early 1900's including ZCMI, U&I Sugar, an Insurance company and a bank. This entity also owned significant real estate that was sold. Over the years the Church has actively managed these businesses. Towards the end of the twentieth century, the Church sold its ownership in many of these businesses and kept only a few that aligned with the purpose of the Church. As you can imagine, these sales generated significant cash. These are the source of funds used to finance City Creek. No donations from Church members were used to finance City Creek. That would break laws and cause the Church to lose its tax exempt status. The Church did not use funds from donations to start the original business either. Most of the time money was borrowed to start these businesses and the Church was the only entity large enough to secure the loans. I am sure that it is very possible that some donations were made back then that were used to pay some of the loans back but it would have been very limited. Most of the tithing funds back then were in kind and there just wasn't that much hard cash. Actually many of the early businesses were partially owned and operated by general authorities who eventually donated their ownership to the Church. Its very difficult to determine exactly where funds came by in this time period as the records just aren't that good. The one fund referred in numerous post above by Brother Burton would be only the fund of the non for profit entity. All donations do go into this single bank account in the United States. The banking in all foreign countries is handled based on the laws of that foreign country. There is no cross mingling of funds between the two entities. The closest thing is that the living allowances for general authorities comes from the for profit entity which is allowed by law to make contributions to a non for profit entity. Both the for profit and non profit entities have been audited both by public accounting firms and government agencies. Believe me, the Church has very sophisticated accounting systems and employees to make sure it complies with all laws. If the statement was made that no tithing funds were used, I am confident that is the case. Why would the Brethren make such a statement if it were false and could be proved false very easily by either the Federal or State government and would put the Church at a high risk of government penalties. Just my two cents based on my understanding and what limited pieces of the Church finances I have seen. 19
The Nehor Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 You might say, "But you can't do that with tithing". Let's think about that. The law of tithing requires we return 10% to the Lord. Is the organizational church the only entity on earth able to utilize $$ for a cause worthy to the Lord? I don't think so.If I owed you money and, without getting approval. gave it to a charity I thought you would like would you consider the debt settled or would you rather have me give it to you so you can use it as you wish. 2
cinepro Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 (edited) (Post withdrawn in light of Kimpearson's excellent post above). Edited June 15, 2015 by cinepro
bluebell Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 I am a CPA who has actually worked with the Church on money issues. I haven't seen this discussed so I will try to add something to the conversation. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saint has two basic legal entities that it controls. One is the non for profit entity we all identify as the Church. All donations made to the Church through the donation process of each ward and branch go to this non profit entity. This includes tithing, fast offering, missionary, perpetual education fund and humanitarian fund. Members can and do make specific donations to the Church through gifts, wills and estates. All of these funds by law must be kept in the non for profit legal entity. Donations from these funds can be made to other non for profit entities such as the American Red Cross. This non for profit entity does keep some reserve funds that are invested in very conservative investments but would only sustain the operations of the non for profit entity for a very short period of time. The non for profit entity of the Church really does operate on the donations of members. Primary uses are buildings, missionary, education including Church schools and seminaries and fast offerings. The second entity controlled by the Church is a for profit entity that pays taxes like any other for profit business entity. This entity I believe includes mainly land (ranches, farms and urban real estate), investments such as stock and bonds and now days a very limited number of businesses such as Deseret News and KSL radio. The original source of funds for these businesses came primarily from the businesses that the Church established in the late 1800's and early 1900's including ZCMI, U&I Sugar, an Insurance company and a bank. This entity also owned significant real estate that was sold. Over the years the Church has actively managed these businesses. Towards the end of the twentieth century, the Church sold its ownership in many of these businesses and kept only a few that aligned with the purpose of the Church. As you can imagine, these sales generated significant cash. These are the source of funds used to finance City Creek. No donations from Church members were used to finance City Creek. That would break laws and cause the Church to lose its tax exempt status. The Church did not use funds from donations to start the original business either. Most of the time money was borrowed to start these businesses and the Church was the only entity large enough to secure the loans. I am sure that it is very possible that some donations were made back then that were used to pay some of the loans back but it would have been very limited. Most of the tithing funds back then were in kind and there just wasn't that much hard cash. Actually many of the early businesses were partially owned and operated by general authorities who eventually donated their ownership to the Church. Its very difficult to determine exactly where funds came by in this time period as the records just aren't that good. The one fund referred in numerous post above by Brother Burton would be only the fund of the non for profit entity. All donations do go into this single bank account in the United States. The banking in all foreign countries is handled based on the laws of that foreign country. There is no cross mingling of funds between the two entities. The closest thing is that the living allowances for general authorities comes from the for profit entity which is allowed by law to make contributions to a non for profit entity. Both the for profit and non profit entities have been audited both by public accounting firms and government agencies. Believe me, the Church has very sophisticated accounting systems and employees to make sure it complies with all laws. If the statement was made that no tithing funds were used, I am confident that is the case. Why would the Brethren make such a statement if it were false and could be proved false very easily by either the Federal or State government and would put the Church at a high risk of government penalties. Just my two cents based on my understanding and what limited pieces of the Church finances I have seen. Thank you! So awesome to have a post from someone who actually knows how it all works. 1
Recommended Posts