Church Employee Salary Info Leaked

[rongo]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

And where did those funds come from?

Seriously, if members donate $$$$ and the church puts all of that into investments and then receives interest $$$$ as their stipend, saying that doesn't come from the members is a bit erroneous.

I wish members, and Church leaders, would simply stop with the "no tithing money was used . . ." explanations. It doesn't take very many degrees of separation at all to get to tithing being behind any Church money.

First person to type the word "fungibility" or "fungible" loses . . . 

[RevTestament]

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

And where did those funds come from?

Seriously, if members donate $$$$ and the church puts all of that into investments and then receives interest $$$$ as their stipend, saying that doesn't come from the members is a bit erroneous.

 

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I guess if we take tithing dollars now and build a high-rise in Philadelphia, then sell it in 50 years using the proceeds to pay the apostles - it isn't tithing money.

Technically still not tithed funds. And has been pointed out to me in the past, the Church also has received substantial gifts and funds from estates and foundations which are not a "tithe." Over the years this I'm sure has amounted to a substantial sum the Church probably invested as well too. I am not particularly defending the Church expenditures, but there is sufficient reason to take them at their word that the salaries don't come from tithed money.

[rongo]

1 minute ago, RevTestament said:

I am not particularly defending the Church expenditures, but there is sufficient reason to take them at their word that the salaries don't come from tithed money.

Why would it matter if it did? Why is it so much better if it came from investment interest, or estate gifts?

I really don't understand the choice of this particular hill to die on.

[rockpond]

21 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I guess if we take tithing dollars now and build a high-rise in Philadelphia, then sell it in 50 years using the proceeds to pay the apostles - it isn't tithing money.

 

5 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Technically still not tithed funds.

 

So, the Brethren can invest tithing dollars in real estate development and then the money is no longer "tithed funds" when the real estate project is sold?  That's your position on this?

[JAHS]

25 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

And where did those funds come from?

Seriously, if members donate $$$$ and the church puts all of that into investments and then receives interest $$$$ as their stipend, saying that doesn't come from the members is a bit erroneous.

I think that's what I said. I said investments started from members donations who are long since dead and so they are not around now to thank them personally. 

[ksfisher]

32 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I can't argue with that. It probably is "nearly zero" but that isn't "all" or "100%"  

I would have counseled people to follow the First Presidency message about what constitutes a tithe and then ask them if they are a full-tithe payer. I would then accept their answer without making them justify how much or where they paid. Those are extra questions.

D&C 119 seems to be pretty clear that tithes are to be paid to the bishop.  I guess it could be clearer, but I'm not aware of much misinterpretation as to their meaning before.

[JAHS]

33 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The allowance that the church leaders get does not come from the members; it comes from dividends on investments made by the church in the past.

Do you have any evidence of that?

LDS church spokesman Eric Hawkins ... did comment generally in a statement on church officials being supported by funds from the church.
"General Authorities leave their careers when they are called into full time Church service. When they do so, they focus all of their time on serving the Church, and are given a living allowance. The living allowance is uniform for all General Authorities. None of the funds for this living allowance come from the tithing of Church members, but instead from proceeds of the Church's financial investments."

http://kutv.com/news/local/mormonleaks-web-page-posts-information-about-living-allowance-of-lds-general-authorities

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, JAHS said:

LDS church spokesman Eric Hawkins ... did comment generally in a statement on church officials being supported by funds from the church.
"General Authorities leave their careers when they are called into full time Church service. When they do so, they focus all of their time on serving the Church, and are given a living allowance. The living allowance is uniform for all General Authorities. None of the funds for this living allowance come from the tithing of Church members, but instead from proceeds of the Church's financial investments."

http://kutv.com/news/local/mormonleaks-web-page-posts-information-about-living-allowance-of-lds-general-authorities

Yes, I'm familiar with that statement.  The auditor in me wants to know what financed the investments.  That's the issue.  There is no actual evidence.  You can't point to any income statements to back up his statement that GA pay comes from non-tithe investments.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

 

 

 

Quote

 

Edit- Deleted

 

 

Edited May 22, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[RevTestament]

Just now, rongo said:

Why would it matter if it did? Why is it so much better if it came from investment interest, or estate gifts?

I really don't understand the choice of this particular hill to die on.

Believe me. I'm not going to die on that hill. I'm just stating that they are apparently telling the truth - not that we can tell from any transparency tho. At this point I kind of doubt we'll see transparency in Church finances - won't matter for too long much longer anyway tho. SLC won't be the center of the Church when the New Jerusalem is built.

I think they say it because it lessens concerns members might have about the lack of transparency. I think I might feel differently about tithing for instance if I thought half my tithe money were going to pay salaries of GAs.... or even a quarter. My general belief is that the funds are responsibly managed, and obviously the Church has become more serious about using contributions to make temples more accessible to the members, which is very good so that they can do the work necessary for their ancestors.

In the case of other Churches, oftentimes almost all the tithing goes to paying for the building, maintaining the grounds, and paying for the pastor and ministry. After that if there is any left over it may get donated to a missionary fund, but I know that churches like the Baptist Church have an annual separate donation drive for missionary work. I also know in the Catholic church - at least in the US, some bishops have put themselves in some rather lavish accommodations. So all in all I feel the LDS Church is very responsible with its funds, but I can't say it is up to BoM or NT standards. If they are going to apply principles of the United Order, it seems they should apply all of them and seek common consent for expenditures under transparency.

[RevTestament]

18 minutes ago, rockpond said:

 

 

So, the Brethren can invest tithing dollars in real estate development and then the money is no longer "tithed funds" when the real estate project is sold?  That's your position on this?

Net profit over and above depreciation or "interest" wouldn't be. Obviously the principal would still be tithed money.

[JAHS]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

Yes, I'm familiar with that statement.  The auditor in me wants to know what financed the investments.  That's the issue.  There is no actual evidence.  You can't point to any income statements to back up his statement that GA pay comes from non-tithe investments.

So your'e telling me you think they are lying about that? Not much else I can say then. 

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Net profit over and above depreciation or "interest" wouldn't be. Obviously the principal would still be tithed money.

So can I use the same theory and invest my tithing in a real estate deal, live off the proceeds, and then at some point when I sell it, I'll go ahead and give the principal to the Church as my fair tithing?

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, JAHS said:

So your'e telling me you think they are lying about that? Not much else I can say then. 

I asked for evidence.  The evidence provided was a statement from a public LDS spokesperson.  Is he lying?  Probably not.  Does his understanding of what that statement means match mine?  Probably not.

[RevTestament]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So can I use the same theory and invest my tithing in a real estate deal, live off the proceeds, and then at some point when I sell it, I'll go ahead and give the principal to the Church as my fair tithing?

That's not tithing. Tithing is when you turn it over to the Lord. Using it for your own purposes is by definition not a tithe. C'mon Rockpond you know this stuff. People get weird when it comes to money don't they?

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, RevTestament said:

That's not tithing. Tithing is when you turn it over to the Lord. Using it for your own purposes is by definition not a tithe. C'mon Rockpond you know this stuff. People get weird when it comes to money don't they?

So, using tithing for a real estate development project and living off the interest and profit (as long as you don't dip into the principal) is giving it to the Lord?

[RevTestament]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So, using tithing for a real estate development project and living off the interest and profit (as long as you don't dip into the principal) is giving it to the Lord?

Are you going to stop playing fast and loose? Once tithing is in the hands of the Church it is not a personal tithe anymore. Then the Church is responsible for using it wisely - yes, for the Lord. If Church expenditures do not use all the tithing funds would you rather them put it in a non-interest bearing account to sit for a rainy day? Let's get real rockpond. But if I as a member choose to put 10% of my increase into an investment in the hopes that I can live off the interest later, obviously that is not a tithe.

[JAHS]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So, using tithing for a real estate development project and living off the interest and profit (as long as you don't dip into the principal) is giving it to the Lord?

 The church has made the statement that no tithing money paid by members today is used for for-profit endeavors, like some real estate projects you are referring to. 

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, JAHS said:

 The church has made the statement that no tithing money paid by members today is used for for-profit endeavors, like some real estate projects you are referring to. 

It was a hypothetical that was proposed earlier in the thread.  I'm just examining the logic of it.

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Are you going to stop playing fast and loose? Once tithing is in the hands of the Church it is not a personal tithe anymore. Then the Church is responsible for using it wisely - yes, for the Lord. If Church expenditures do not use all the tithing funds would you rather them put it in a non-interest bearing account to sit for a rainy day? Let's get real rockpond. But if I as a member choose to put 10% of my increase into an investment in the hopes that I can live off the interest later, obviously that is not a tithe.

I'm not suggesting that members do that.  I don't.  I'm just pointing out that I don't think it is logical, as was suggested earlier, that tithe monies could be used to invest and that the profit from the investment is NOT tithes.

[RevTestament]

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm not suggesting that members do that.  I don't.  I'm just pointing out that I don't think it is logical, as was suggested earlier, that tithe monies could be used to invest and that the profit from the investment is NOT tithes.

It's not tithe in the same way that interest on an investment is not principal. Interest is usually taxable while principal is not. If Church funds were taxable, the tithe would be the principal rather than the taxable interest. 

I tithe on increase from my own personal investments, but not the principal. Maybe you don't. I don't know. I've kind of lost the distinctions you are trying to make.

Edited May 22, 2017 by RevTestament

[rockpond]

21 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

It's not tithe in the same way that interest on an investment is not principal. Interest is usually taxable while principal is not. If Church funds were taxable, the tithe would be the principal rather than the taxable interest. 

I tithe on increase from my own personal investments, but not the principal. Maybe you don't. I don't know. I've kind of lost the distinctions you are trying to make.

Yeah... we've gotten really far away from the example you suggested.

I think that if tithing money is invested (by the Church), any interest/profit from that investment is also considered tithing.  I gather that you would disagree.  Right?

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

 

Technically still not tithed funds. And has been pointed out to me in the past, the Church also has received substantial gifts and funds from estates and foundations which are not a "tithe." Over the years this I'm sure has amounted to a substantial sum the Church probably invested as well too. I am not particularly defending the Church expenditures, but there is sufficient reason to take them at their word that the salaries don't come from tithed money.

Tithing is just gifts and donations.  It's really no different.  If I give the Church 15% of my income or increase, is the Church aware that I gave more than my tithe, and therefore categorized the 5% over what I'm required, differently? 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

LDS church spokesman Eric Hawkins ... did comment generally in a statement on church officials being supported by funds from the church.
"General Authorities leave their careers when they are called into full time Church service. When they do so, they focus all of their time on serving the Church, and are given a living allowance. The living allowance is uniform for all General Authorities. None of the funds for this living allowance come from the tithing of Church members, but instead from proceeds of the Church's financial investments."

http://kutv.com/news/local/mormonleaks-web-page-posts-information-about-living-allowance-of-lds-general-authorities

So are we saying the Church's financial investments were not originally built off of tithes?  Tithing from 100 or 50 years ago seems to be what the Church had used to build its business interests, which gives the Church the benefit to make moneys beyond tithes.  It's fine...it's smart, but it's also not as if tithing didn't contribute.  This statement leaves the room to say current tithing donations aren't used. 

[JAHS]

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So are we saying the Church's financial investments were not originally built off of tithes?  Tithing from 100 or 50 years ago seems to be what the Church had used to build its business interests, which gives the Church the benefit to make moneys beyond tithes.  It's fine...it's smart, but it's also not as if tithing didn't contribute.  This statement leaves the room to say current tithing donations aren't used. 

I think this statement and any other like it is only referring to the tithing that members are paying today. I don't think we know for sure when and where all the money came from that the church used to start investing, but I suppose some of it did come from donations from members 150 years ago.