MormonLeaks publishes docs on GA pay, meetings

[Okrahomer]

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I am not sure, but there are many times people with large amounts of wealth, for whatever reason contact and make specific donations to the church that are not on the Tithing Slips.  I have heard of land donated for temples directly, Large endowments to BYU and other donations.  

Like this.

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

What do you think of Calm's hypothesis that a disproportionately high percentage of Canadian contributions go to support BYU because education is one exception to the law forbidding use of charitable contributions outside of Canada?

 

13 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Nobody knows who you are; why worry about the perceptions?

I'm not sure what transparency and common consent have to do with the Brethren being right or fallible, but there's no reason not to address the use of Canadian tithing funds for BYU. I think Calm answered the technical part, which makes sense to me; I'd now like to look into the serious concern the practice raises.

 

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Sending Canadian dollars to BYU is simply an accounting mechanism to legally move the funds without tax liability. Canadians aren't really paying that much towards BYU. Remember... ALL church funds are FUNGIBLE. They just shift them around.

IOW- I don't get upset about the Canada/BYU thing any more than I get upset about the church saying it doesn't pay leader's stipends out of tithing funds. It's ALL the same thing because the funds are interchangeable between ledgers.

An accounting mechanism to legally move funds out of Canada without tax liability.... Interesting conclusion, HJW.  

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, rockpond said:

No, I meant that the members making the donations are specifically directing 30-50% of it to BYU.  That's the point I was responding to.

Oh, I find that highly unlikely though there are some rabid BYU fans up there.  It might be possible that some of the more wealthy Canadians have donated major bucks to BYU for some reason, but I doubt it averages out to anything significant.  There was never any push in our area to do so, though the PEF got mentioned quite a bit, along with some other projects like the Nauvoo temple (by one of our ward members who was called to go on a mission there to create the music for the pageant and then there was the scout trip there one year...while the girls couldn't even leave the province...urg).

We did the same thing with our tithing and offerings up there as down here so I don't believe the process is much different at the grassroots level even if the money once collected needs to be handled differently.  Will have to ask my husband if the bank depositing varied at all.  I remember from my perception what he did was identical, but then I wasn't interested in the paper trail that goes with tithes, etc.

We have more free money down here, so give more to other projects, but the tithing slips were the same iirc.  I might even find some if I dig deep enough as I am rather obsessive about records, though I managed a big purge last year and think I managed to dump all our Canadian stuff besides the retirement package, it being over ten years (sigh...)

Edited January 11, 2017 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

16 minutes ago, amo said:

Oh, ok, so now you can say whatever is in your mind and try to make us believe you are telling us the truth, Mmmm, it just doesn't work that way nowadays. Either you come up with a verifiable reference or we may just have to conclude that you are exaggerating, if not lying. You choose...

A bit hostile and unobservant for a newbie  

If you're not just a troll, Welcome. But why are you trying to pick a fight.

If you go back through the thread the link has been posted at least twice.

Edited January 11, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[amo]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The link was provided.  Turns out I was telling the truth. 

Provided by you ? 

[Nevo]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

It would be interesting to know how many Canadians typically go to BYU or use their resources.

There were 203 Canadian students enrolled at BYU in the Fall 2015 semester:

https://internationalservices.byu.edu/sites/internationalservices.byu.edu/files/Fall 2015.pdf

(BTW, as a Canadian tithe payer I am totally fine with 30% or more of my donation going to BYU.)

Edited January 11, 2017 by Nevo

[amo]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

A bit hostile and unobservant for a newbie  

Welcome. If you go back through the thread the link has been posted at least twice.

They say that newbies tend to be hostile, now, don't you dare to ask me for a reference on that... 

So, should I then go back and read the entire thread to find it ?

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, amo said:

They say that newbies tend to be hostile, now, don't you dare to ask me for a reference on that... 

So, should I then go back and read the entire thread to find it ?

IMO- That is a much better option than picking a fight with a long time, well-respected contributor. you'll find it within the last couple of pages.

ETA- Just to be helpful  http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/haip/srch/t3010form22QuickView-eng.action?b=826344632RR0001&fpe=2015-12-31&r=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cra-arc.gc.ca%3A80%2Febci%2Fhaip%2Fsrch%2Fbasicsearchresult-eng.action%3Fk%3Dlatter%2Bday%26amp%3Bs%3Dregistered%26amp%3Bp%3D1%26amp 

Edited January 11, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

But vicarious work was not performed prior to the resurrection of Christ (Talmadge), so this cannot be a "restoration" of the Levite sacrifice.

Yes like I said a the beginning of the post, "Many are of the opinion".  I think it's hard for people to imagine modern later-day saints actually performing a burnt offering animal sacrifice in a modern day temple. 

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That's absurd. This isn't a courtroom.

If I say I have serious questions about the church that doesn't mean I am making an accusation. You're reading far too much into this and acting like a bully.

The link to the financial info is out there. Look at it if you want. See that a HUGE amount of Canadian tithing dollars are sent directly to BYU. See how much is paid for employees. Compare that to how much is paid for humanitarian aid etc and draw your own conclusions.

You say...

Quote

Danzo-

He is saying

1.  The financial statements are incomplete

2.  The financial statements are fraudulent

3.  The financial statements show misuse of funds

Please show me where he said these things. I'm not talking about where you imagined him saying these things but show me the quotes. CFR.

Chill out, man and stop inflicting your assumptions and bias onto others.

Hey Danzo, I'm still waiting for an answer or a retraction.

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Sending Canadian dollars to BYU is simply an accounting mechanism to legally move the funds without tax liability. Canadians aren't really paying that much towards BYU. Remember... ALL church funds are FUNGIBLE. They just shift them around.

IOW- I don't get upset about the Canada/BYU thing any more than I get upset about the church saying it doesn't pay leader's stipends out of tithing funds. It's ALL the same thing because the funds are interchangeable between ledgers.

Anyone who holds the position that all Church funds are one big pot should not be upset with the process.

I do see tithing as one big pot, but I see the profit and nonprofit as two and the LDS Philanthropies as a separate pot from them though tithing gets shunted into that (don't know if offerings are) for the administrative costs, iirc.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Yes like I said a the beginning of the post, "Many are of the opinion".  I think it's hard for people to imagine modern later-day saints actually performing a burnt offering animal sacrifice in a modern day temple. 

We would have to turn off the fire sprinklers and smoke alarms for one thing.

[Danzo]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Hey Danzo, I'm still waiting for an answer or a retraction.

rockpond sufficiently clarified his serious questions, and I thank him for that.

I hereby retract anything that I thought rockpond might have meant and replace it with what he did, in fact mean.

 

[halconero]

39 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I see the difference you are referencing.  "Observe and keep" for others, "Accept" for consecration.
Your suggestion is that this falls under Brigham's "polygamist, at least in your faith" idea.  We have to follow consecration "at least in our faith".

I had to go reread the covenant.  Read it over a half dozen times.  And I don't agree with you. 
Yes, the wording says "accept".  However the wording specifies that you show your acceptance of that law by actually consecrating during the making of the covenant.  Anybody under that covenant has already agreed, not to observe the law in the future, but they have already done so.
They just have to live accordingly going forward.

I view it more as an "observed if called upon," sort of thing. The problem is that your interpretation doesn't work in other languages. I've ran both Spanish and French ones before and in both the clause "in that you..." is attached grammatically to the definition consecration rather than the verb "accept." Namely that what follows is a definition of the law of consecration rather than attached to the action of the acceptance by the patron. This interpretation is still valid in English grammatically, but is more ambiguous. Still, that might be more a reflection of the translation of the endowment rather than any veracity of its case.

[CV75]

29 minutes ago, rockpond said:

44 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Nobody knows who you are; why worry about the perceptions?

I'm not sure what transparency and common consent have to do with the Brethren being right or fallible, but there's no reason not to address the use of Canadian tithing funds for BYU. I think Calm answered the technical part, which makes sense to me; I'd now like to look into the serious concern the practice raises.

An accounting mechanism to legally move funds out of Canada without tax liability.... Interesting conclusion, HJW.  

OK, so let's answer this one too (thank you):  Posted 1 hour ago

Edited January 11, 2017 by CV75

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, Danzo said:

 

I know of many organization (one speficicaly that I did the 990 for) where tithing donations constituted a relatively small percentage of over all donations. 

 

Why would any organization pay tithing?

[Calm]

"The Income Tax Act (Canada) allows charities to conduct their charitable purposes by: 1) giving money or assets to another “qualified donee” (see below); or 2) by conducting their “own activities” (at home or abroad). There is no ‘third option’. A Canadian charity cannot just transfer or grant money to a foreign NGO or charity. In general, the same notion applies to operations within Canada. A Canadian charity cannot just give or transfer funds to another Canadian organization that is not a qualified donee (e.g., a registered charity).

Transfers to Another Qualified Donee
Qualified donees are organizations that can, under the Income Tax Act (Canada), issue official donation receipts for gifts that individuals or corporations make to them.
Qualified donees include:

registered charities;

registered Canadian amateur athletic associations;

registered national arts service organizations;

housing corporations in Canada set up exclusively to provide low-cost housing for the aged;

a municipality;

a municipal or public body performing a function of government in Canada;

the United Nations and its agencies;

universities outside Canada with a student body that ordinarily includes students from Canada (these universities are listed in Schedule VIII of the Income Tax Regulations);

charitable organizations outside Canada to which the Government of Canada has made a gift during the donor’s taxation year, or in the 12 months immediately before that period;  and

the Government of Canada, a province, or a territory.

A Canadian charity can transfer funds or assets to another qualified donee. For example, a Canadian charitable organization with no experience in foreign operations that wishes to aid people in Darfur may decide to support Doctors Without Borders Canada, a Canadian qualified donee. There is no need from a CRA point of view to have an agreement between the donor charity and Doctors Without Borders Canada. If the donor charity wishes to restrict the gift to Darfur, then it may wish to have a direction or agreement to that effect. Similarly, if a donor requested that his or her donation to a community foundation (qualified donee) should be applied toward dealing with the issue of AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa, the foundation could transfer the funds to the Stephen Lewis Foundation or Canadian Crossroads International, both qualified donees, without the need for an agreement or monitoring. For many Canadian charities that do not have experience in direct charitable activities outside of Canada, a donation to another qualified donee is the simplest and safest way to have a global impact...

Yes.  Canadian charities can conduct their “Own Activities” through using foreign intermediaries.  However, foreign charities and NGOs are rarely qualified donees. Therefore, as a general rule, a Canadian charity cannot transfer funds or assets to them except in furtherance of the Canadian charity’s “own activities” in a structured arrangement, as discussed below.

There are a number of different structured arrangements through which a Canadian charity can operate abroad, including: 1) Canadian employees or volunteers of the Canadian charity directly working abroad; 2) Agency Agreements with an Agent; 3) Contractor Agreements; 4) Joint Venture Agreements/Joint Ministry Agreements; and 5) Cooperative Partnership Agreements."

http://www.canadiancharitylaw.ca/faq

-----

So I am assuming this means the Church in Canada is legally in some way a separate entity from SLC and by donating to the foreign educational entity that is BYU, they don't have to set up duplicate processes to supply other needs.  It would be useless to have to have a Canadian manager/managing group as well an American or local overseer of a churchproject and have to divide up who was doing what (Canadians doing the cultural hall since they invented basketball while the Americans do the offices and they split the classrooms in half while the chapel up to pew 10 is Canadian and 11 and the rest out to and including overflow whoever else is involved.  

[Danzo]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why would any organization pay tithing?

I meant tithing received, this is a religious entity.

Many religious organisations pay tithing in some form or other.  I know that local habitats for humanity used to pay tithing to the central organisation.

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

I'm loving how everyone needs to turn this personal.  Make it about my worthiness in the gospel.  Nice.

Gospel hobby has nothing to do with worthiness == at least, it is not in the temple recommend questions.  So, yes, it is a rhetorical question but is fair game.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Gospel hobby has nothing to do with worthiness == at least, it is not in the temple recommend questions.  So, yes, it is a rhetorical question but is fair game.

So what did you mean by that comment?

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Regarding the Church needing to answer questions:  They disclose their finances in Canada, Great Britian, New Zealand and probably some other locations I am not aware of.  And, to my knowledge, they haven't opened up a 500 person office to respond to questions.  It seems that they haven't even responded to any questions that people have about what is currently disclosed.

I find it interesting that you are arguing the church fund allocation  in Canada, New Zealand and England are in the same league as in the United States.   That the activity of the church critics are virtually identical in those countries.  Look at what happens whenever a document or video is leaked.   This thread has almost 20 pages of discussion on the latest leak. 

 

Edited January 12, 2017 by cdowis

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, cdowis said:

I find it interesting that you are arguing the church fund allocation  in Canada, New Zealand and England are in the same league as in the United States.   That the activity of the church critics are virtually identical in those countries.

Nothing personal, but I'm really having trouble taking you seriously.

When did I say they were all in the same league?  Odd assumption.

All are related -- as has been shown on this thread.

I have trouble taking the "500-person office answering questions" comment seriously.

[SteveO]

I don't know if this had been posted yet, Daniel Peterson's response:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2017/01/living-stipends-general-authorities.html

One paragraph I liked:

"Consider, too, the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  I count two heart surgeons, three lawyers (with degrees from Chicago, Stanford, and Duke), and two Harvard MBAs.  One of them holds a doctorate in organizational behavior.  One, with a Yale Ph.D., was the president of a large university (as, for that matter, were two others).  Three were highly successful businessmen before their call to life-long Church service.  Their professional credentials are such that the stipend amounts mentioned simply aren’t that remarkable.  In fact, they’re quite low."

Carry on

 

[Atheist Mormon]

On 1/9/2017 at 4:33 PM, Jeanne said:

Church members volunteer their little hearts out...funny that they can't pay for janitors anymore..but 1st class flights and pay increases are a definite must.

Solve the missionary problems by not making it such a requirement to go in the first place.  You want to serve..go   Those who don't won't be such a horrible influence  on others.

You definitely sound "Socialist".

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, halconero said:

I view it more as an "observed if called upon," sort of thing. The problem is that your interpretation doesn't work in other languages. I've ran both Spanish and French ones before and in both the clause "in that you..." is attached grammatically to the definition consecration rather than the verb "accept." Namely that what follows is a definition of the law of consecration rather than attached to the action of the acceptance by the patron. This interpretation is still valid in English grammatically, but is more ambiguous. Still, that might be more a reflection of the translation of the endowment rather than any veracity of its case.

Well since the endowment would have been revealed to Joseph Smith in English I will go with the English translation and consider any foreign differences to be translation errors.
In English your interpretation of the covenant leaves something to be desired.

Edited January 12, 2017 by JLHPROF