Church Finances---official source

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Something that has been discussed in this forum over the years is what is the source of the Church's "corporate empire." When the church constructs a 2-billion dollar mega mall or purchases 2% of the state of Florida, where does the money come from? Some have argued that there is a strict distinction between sacred funds from tithing and secular funds from business profits, and that sacred funds are used strictly on sacred things, while the secular funds are used to continue to grow the church's corporate interests.

That debate should now be placed to rest. The church's assets are fungible--there is no distinction between sacred money and secular money. All of it is considered sacred, and the vast majority of capital in the corporate interests originated from "the sacred tithes and offerings given by members."

 

Q: Does the Church have investment reserves? What kinds of investments does the Church possess?

The Church maintains diversified reserves — including common stocks and bonds, interests in taxable businesses, commercial and residential real estate and agricultural properties — to provide financial support for the Church’s ongoing and future operations. These funds are invested solely to support the Church’s mission to preach the gospel to all nations and prepare for the Lord’s Second Coming.

Q: Where does the money for the Church’s reserves come from?

The vast majority of Church operations are funded through the sacred tithes and offerings given by members. The Church operates within its means and sets aside a portion of its funds each year. The Church follows the financial principles it teaches: living within a budget, avoiding debt, and saving and investing for the future.

 

Well, I would partially agree, I think the distinction between tithing and other funds is largely an accounting labeling of those funds.  However, from everything I've read, I do think they put restrictions on what the funds labeled as tithing can be used for.  I'm pretty sure that their rules would require that funds labeled as tithing can't be used to fund for profit business activities.  I think they would also run into tax liability issues if they took charitably donated funds and used them in for profit activities.  

So I think there are some important distinctions, but in general I expect there is some fungibility when it comes to the categories to some extent.  

[Maidservant]

8 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Something that has been discussed in this forum over the years is what is the source of the Church's "corporate empire." When the church constructs a 2-billion dollar mega mall or purchases 2% of the state of Florida, where does the money come from? Some have argued that there is a strict distinction between sacred funds from tithing and secular funds from business profits, and that sacred funds are used strictly on sacred things, while the secular funds are used to continue to grow the church's corporate interests.

That debate should now be placed to rest. The church's assets are fungible--there is no distinction between sacred money and secular money. And all of it is considered sacred:

 

 

And I love this personally.  The key is when you say it is all sacred.  The Lord--as expressed through Old Testament and in the Joseph Smith latter-day project--has always included land and prosperity with his covenants (Old Testament) and ZCMI and sugar beets other kinds of things--there isn't a line separating them except in 'sectarian' notions that have grown up over history.  Even Jesus' ministry had a treasury.  I would LOVE to know how that was spent, ha ha!

One problem is that the Church really isn't a church; it's the kingdom of God on the earth.  The nations may fall down around us, but that network that we call the Church is going to remain, YES, with 2% control of Florida, ha ha.  I find that heartening, not frightening.

[Maidservant]

10 minutes ago, Exiled said:

My guess is that there is some exaggeration in the spending.  Marginal gains pointed that out.  I agree that the leaders aren't spending lavishly on themselves, though.  However, the idea of church finances today is to hoard money.  Ever since MacKay, Moyle, and co. almost bankrupted the church with their over-building program, the church became a financial miser.  My question is how much money the church is sitting on?  I think all can agree that the church has expenses.  We can argue around the edges as to how much those expenses are but the real question, and closely held secret is on the revenue side, the tithing and contributions side.  Until we know that, telling the church membership about expenses is misleadingly giving the impression that the church has a rough time covering the expenses.  It doesn't precisely because it doesn't disclose anything on the revenue side.  My guess is that it is sitting on a huge pile of money that rightfully should be distributed out, but is not. 

I see, so for you, more distribution is better.  Well, okay--I'd like to be on the end of that too :).

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Something that has been discussed in this forum over the years is what is the source of the Church's "corporate empire." When the church constructs a 2-billion dollar mega mall or purchases 2% of the state of Florida, where does the money come from? Some have argued that there is a strict distinction between sacred funds from tithing and secular funds from business profits, and that sacred funds are used strictly on sacred things, while the secular funds are used to continue to grow the church's corporate interests.

That debate should now be placed to rest. The church's assets are fungible--there is no distinction between sacred money and secular money. And all of it is considered sacred:

 

 

I've been making this fungibility argument for a long time so it's nice to see it here.

One of the things I'd really like to understand is the flow of income to expenditures. It has been my understanding (whether correct or not) that all funds received are placed into endowment reserves that are invested. Expenditures are then taken from the investment income. If that is correct then it is both a very practical/sustainable income model but also indicates that members donations today (even for specific issues like disaster relief) may be placed into investments first.

As has already been stated, without full disclosure we really have no idea whether or not the church is generous with its funds. A large dollar figure doesn't necessarily mean they are being generous as a percentage of income. The "billions" donated in the past few years seems like a sketchy claim and the problem with non-disclosure is there is no way to check it. It could be accurate, or it could be a purposeful exaggeration, or it could be a simple misstatement. If the church was interested in earning the trust of members they would disclose finances. As it is, they expect the trust of members without earning it.

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

Okay.  I do disagree, but thanks for taking a moment to explain more.

I guess I just don't have a problem with expensive temples, because it seems like a necessary symbolic point to me; and temples themselves (although one could argue perhaps a simpler temple--but I don't agree) produce covenant people with greater spiritual resources to create their lives (i.e. heaven on earth) including the part where they donate to humanitarian causes instead of not being able to rise to the position of having surplus.

But how much is too much?  Is a rug that costs $17,000 too much (this was something i read on reddit a couple years back, don't know how accurate it is).  Your point that you are ok with expensive temples surely must have some limit to what is ok in your mind.  Would a $100M temple be too expense?  What about a $1B temple?  At what point does spending on temples get too expensive for your tastes?  

[Exiled]

9 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

I see, so for you, more distribution is better.  Well, okay--I'd like to be on the end of that too :).

I don't think churches should control our economy or even have enough money to have a say. Churches should be our servants not our masters. So, a church that is sitting on huge amounts of money is problematic. Investors like to control the companies they invest in and so as churches get more money and invest it, they will start exercising more and more control.  Do you think it would be a good thing if the catholic church continued to control countries as it did in the middle ages? It obviously isn't a problem with the church outside of utah now but could be as the years go on. So, let's see what the church is doing with its money in a detailed fashion. What are its plans? Do we want a conservative nanny influencing our politics like in the marijuana question? Having a church that is starving for money lessens the control danger. Maybe you want a church to have enough economic power to where it can affect elections, as long as it is the mormons, but not scientology, right? So, let's see where the church is and how much money it is sitting on. If it is a lot, let's force a distribution to humanitarian projects that benefit all.

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, Exiled said:

So, let's see where the church is and how much money it is sitting on. If it is a lot, let's force a distribution to humanitarian projects that benefit all. 

How exactly would you propose to "force" the church to spend money?

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

How exactly would you propose to "force" the church to spend money?

Put it under the command of a Central Committee headed by Exiled, hope-for-things, and Marginal Gains. 

[smac97]

34 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I don't think churches should control our economy or even have enough money to have a say.

Do you oppose secular groups from "hav[ing] a say" as well?  Or is just religious groups?  Or is it just the Mormons?

Quote

Churches should be our servants not our masters.

I don't understand this.  How are churches "our masters?"  They are voluntarily-associated groups of individuals.  If you don't want to belong to it, you have the right to leave it at any time.  There is no compulsion in belonging to a religious group (in the U.S., anyway).

Quote

So, a church that is sitting on huge amounts of money is problematic.

I can understand this concern.

Quote

Investors like to control the companies they invest in

But donations to the LDS Church are not investments, and members are not investors.  Rather a significant distinction, I think.

Quote

and so as churches get more money and invest it, they will start exercising more and more control.  

Again, I am curious as to why you are targeting private religious groups.

Quote

Do you think it would be a good thing if the catholic church continued to control countries as it did in the middle ages?

No.  I am grateful to live in the U.S., and to have autonomy to choose to belong to and support a religious group, or not.  We do not have church taxes, and I am grateful for that.

Quote

It obviously isn't a problem with the church outside of utah now but could be as the years go on.

I don't think so.

Quote

So, let's see what the church is doing with its money in a detailed fashion.

You first.  Please upload PDFs of your tax returns for the last three years.  Since I'm in a generous mood, I'll allow you to redact your social security number.

Quote

What are its plans? Do we want a conservative nanny influencing our politics like in the marijuana question?

"Our politics?"  So private religious groups are not allowed to have a voice in such issues?  Or is it just the Mormons that are second-class citizens in your eyes, and have no right to participate in the political process?

Quote

Having a church that is starving for money lessens the control danger.

What a disgusting canard this is.  What's next?  Clamping down on Jews and the "danger" they pose?

Are you even listening to yourself?   Do you likewise spin fearmongering and hateful speculation about other religious minority groups?  Or is it just the Mormons that are the special recipients of your venom?

-Smac

Edited May 23, 2018 by smac97

[blueglass]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I totally agree that the answer is not sufficient.  The WHY they want us to believe is because its not required by law.  But that isn't a full explanation.  Besides, does the church only do things that are required by law?  Articulating why should be more robust than the answer they gave.  I agree that its not a good answer.  

It's definitely time to write our congressman and get a bill passed which will require churches and all 501(c)(3)'s to disclose financials.  

[JAHS]

46 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

As it is, they expect the trust of members without earning it.

And I do fully trust them because I think they have earned my trust as I see what is being done with it.  What I donate is not my money, it is and always has been God's. I am just handing it back to Him. If the church does something wrong with it, that is on their heads, not mine. 

[Analytics]

49 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Well, I would partially agree, I think the distinction between tithing and other funds is largely an accounting labeling of those funds.  However, from everything I've read, I do think they put restrictions on what the funds labeled as tithing can be used for.  I'm pretty sure that their rules would require that funds labeled as tithing can't be used to fund for profit business activities.  I think they would also run into tax liability issues if they took charitably donated funds and used them in for profit activities.  

So I think there are some important distinctions, but in general I expect there is some fungibility when it comes to the categories to some extent.  

I don't think the accounting labeling you are imagining actually exists. "Tithing revenue" is a type of revenue item, just like "realized capital gains," "dividends", and "interest income" are types of revenue. But once the revenue is collected, it is all mixed as part of the church's total assets which include, cash, bonds, land, stocks, commercial real estate, etc.

Most years, they receive more tithing revenue than they spend. The difference is invested in stocks and bonds, including the stocks and bonds it purchases from Deseret Management Corporation and other such corporations that  are used to capitalize them.

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, SteveO said:

It does answer the question.  They don't provide the financial information because they don't HAVE to.   
 

Bingo.  They don't have to and they don't want to.  But other major religious denominations don't have to but they do anyway.

[pogi]

5 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

I don’t believe this^ statement is accurate.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865657898/LDS-Church-welfare-humanitarian-efforts-average-40-million-per-year-apostle-says.html

Quote

 

In a lecture given last month at the University of Oxford, Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles said that each year The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints spends about $40 million on welfare, humanitarian and other LDS Church-sponsored projects around the world and has done so for more than 30 years.

That would account for approximately $1.2 billion on welfare and humanitarian efforts over the past 30 years. Elder Oaks also said that in the last year alone, Mormon volunteers have devoted 25 million hours of labor.

 

Can you put a price tag on man hours?  25 million hours of labor in 1 year.  At a meager $15/hour value, that would equate to $375 million donated in man hours in 1 year alone.  Add to that the $40 million in cold hard cash (not counting what is donated in food, clothing, equipment, etc.), and we are at $415 million/year donated.  In just 3 years you are at 1.25 billion (again, not counting non-money items donated from our cattle farms, orchards, gardens, Bishops Storehouse, Deseret Industries, etc. etc. etc.). 

[pogi]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

For those interested:

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-finances-and-a-growing-global-church

Quite a bit more.

Quote

Following sound financial principles over an extended period of time, the Church has grown from meager beginnings into a worldwide organization able to support its divine mission. Its current relative prosperity only reflects the faith of its members in keeping the law of tithing and the accomplishment in their lives of the Lord’s often-repeated promise that “inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments ye shall prosper in the land” (Alma 9:13).

To put another spin on this, this is further evidence of my claim that the LDS church is the original prosperity gospel.  The church seems to see itself as a form of prosperity gospel in this quote.  

[Amulek]

17 minutes ago, blueglass said:

It's definitely time to write our congressman and get a bill passed which will require churches and all 501(c)(3)'s to disclose financials.

Never going to happen.

Unlike banks and other regulated entities, there simply isn't a compelling public interest which would require private non-profits to disclose their financial statements. 

 

[Amulek]

50 minutes ago, Exiled said:

[...] Investors like to control the companies they invest in and so as churches get more money and invest it, they will start exercising more and more control.  Do you think it would be a good thing if the catholic church continued to control countries as it did in the middle ages? It obviously isn't a problem with the church outside of utah now but could be as the years go on. [...]

Yes, the church could make enough money (tax free!) to buy the whole world eventually. 

This is totally a rational fear. 

Edited May 23, 2018 by Amulek

[Maidservant]

57 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

But how much is too much?  Is a rug that costs $17,000 too much (this was something i read on reddit a couple years back, don't know how accurate it is).  Your point that you are ok with expensive temples surely must have some limit to what is ok in your mind.  Would a $100M temple be too expense?  What about a $1B temple?  At what point does spending on temples get too expensive for your tastes?  

Honestly, this is hard to answer for me, because I feel no emotional charge whatsoever when these various amounts are listed.  I don't think too much money is too much money in any situation in life (not only churches), so I have a different view of money, period, than most people I guess.  I mean, we could go deep as to why anything costs anything--I mean, why do the marble makers (miners?) charge so dang much?  But marble it is--so pay what is fair for THAT.  Why go with linoleum?  Why do we in our culture think that we should pay less as a virtue?  Why isn't paying more a virtue?  I mean, I had to learn that coming from my childhood.  Instead of paying less and getting a bargain and feeling proud of myself--I figured out I should be ashamed.  Rather, I should pay full price or more, since people--artisans--were putting their all into what they make and likely supporting a family.

I think the kind of questions we ask determine the answer we get.  I'm not sure what the questions should be, but I'm pretty sure--for me anyway--it's not the mathematical difference between 1 billion and 100 million.  That's a function of the economy we live in for quality items.  The question for me is what the lesson is for me as I enter the temple and am surrounded by the best and built by the best practices--what does that say about me as a child of God and what has been provided for me there in the temple.  A temple that is my Father's house and that as a daughter I am free to enter and spend as much time there as I wish.  The temple was built for me.  And the temples (smaller ones) are being taken around the earth to bless everyone.  It's not an investment without any return.  The return is what happens for families and communities that are centered around the temple and its principles and covenants.  If we don't believe that, then spending a penny is too much, because what is the point.  If we do believe that, spending a gazillion is not too much.

Anyway, I hear you but really I don't have a value in my mind about 'too much money'; I'm much more fluid about things like that, and I find that fluidity more peaceful for me.

38 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I don't think churches should control our economy or even have enough money to have a say. Churches should be our servants not our masters. So, a church that is sitting on huge amounts of money is problematic. Investors like to control the companies they invest in and so as churches get more money and invest it, they will start exercising more and more control.  Do you think it would be a good thing if the catholic church continued to control countries as it did in the middle ages? It obviously isn't a problem with the church outside of utah now but could be as the years go on. So, let's see what the church is doing with its money in a detailed fashion. What are its plans? Do we want a conservative nanny influencing our politics like in the marijuana question? Having a church that is starving for money lessens the control danger. Maybe you want a church to have enough economic power to where it can affect elections, as long as it is the mormons, but not scientology, right? So, let's see where the church is and how much money it is sitting on. If it is a lot, let's force a distribution to humanitarian projects that benefit all.

Well, either it's the Lord's money and the Lord's work; or it isn't.  If it is--it is to be trusted.  If it isn't--it shouldn't be being done at all, and gradations of it matter little.

If there is a lot of money being sat on--that makes me comfortable, actually.  Because I trust that that likely will have a use that will be distributed in the right time and place--not individual cut checks of course, but for the entire church and world community.

[Tacenda]

In this video it gives the message that your children that aren't temple worthy or inactive shouldn't get an inheritance. Because of the backlash the video has been taken down. But it bothers me that LDS Philanthropies even put it on their website at one time. How dare the church get in between families' finances and possibly break up families. Also, why would it teach this way, it is almost like holding a carrot or hammer over their children's heads. So maybe the children stay temple worthy over just this reason alone. And their heart isn't in it for the right reasons. 

This family in the video is related to me, and I'm a little embarrassed that they would do this. I do know from listening to Mormonstories podcast they interview Roger Hendrix who worked for the Deseret Trust company for the church. He said they have to dissuade members when they want to donate all of their money to the church instead of leaving an inheritance, happy to hear that. https://www.mormonstories.org/podcast/roger-hendrix/

But I believe the church gets plenty from members doing this, and the video above doesn't help much with families feeling like their parents choose the church over them. 

Maybe the church should have included something like this in their finance disclosures and what not to do. 

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I don't think the accounting labeling you are imagining actually exists. "Tithing revenue" is a type of revenue item, just like "realized capital gains," "dividends", and "interest income" are types of revenue. But once the revenue is collected, it is all mixed as part of the church's total assets which include, cash, bonds, land, stocks, commercial real estate, etc.

CFR, please.  I have long understood that the Church differentiates utilization of different sources of income.  So I'd like to better understand what you are saying here.

5 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Most years, they receive more tithing revenue than they spend. The difference is invested in stocks and bonds, including the stocks and bonds it purchases from Deseret Management Corporation and other such corporations that  are used to capitalize them.

And again, CFR, please.

We've addressed this general topic many times before.  This thread about D. Michael Quinn's book is a good example.  An excerpt:

Quote

So the Trib has an interesting article today: Records reveal how money from Utah and U.S. Mormons props up LDS operations overseas

Some excerpts:

Quote

Among the distinctions the LDS Church is known for are its missionaries in white shirts, its towering temples and saying next to nothing about its money.

After all, the Utah-based faith doesn’t have to reveal much about its wealth in the United States and many other locales around the globe.

But, in a few countries, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must make public at least some basic information about the revenue it collects, the money it spends and the assets it owns.

...

For his new book, “The Mormon Hierarchy: Wealth & Corporate Power,” noted historian D. Michael Quinn obtained the LDS Church’s financial disclosures for 2010 in six countries that require churches or charities to make such filings: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the Philippines, Tonga and the U.K.

...

The combined assets in those six countries added to $1.8 billion in 2010. They include cash, investments and real estate like a stake center (regional meetinghouse) in view of Australia’s Gold Coast, the Mormon temple south of London and hundreds of chapels across the six countries.

...

The historian, who was excommunicated from the LDS Church in 1993 for his writings about early Mormon polygamy, says he was most struck by the money church leaders in Utah directed overseas. Of the six countries, only Australia did not report a supplement from headquarters in 2010.

The church in Canada received $166,728, while the Philippines got $63.8 million — 85 percent of its revenue.

Even in a developed country like the United Kingdom — home to almost as many Mormons as in Canada — headquarters sent $1.8 million in 2010, indicating that the church infrastructure exceeds what the locals can support. That and the other subsidies lead Quinn to assume the U.S.-born church is subsidizing its work and wards in Africa and Latin America, too.

Based on some general statements Mormon apostles have made through the decades about the church’s income from profit-making corporations and members’ tithing, Quinn says, the source of those subsidies must be offerings from Americans and the businesses the faith owns.

"{T}he U.S.-born church is subsidizing its work {in other countries}."'

"Quinn says {that} the source of those subsidies must be offerings from Americans and the businesses the faith owns."

I am emphasizing this not to toot the horn of the American Saints, but to gently rebut the rather frequent criticism of the Church's ownership of business interests.  Those business interests seem to be revenue generators.  That is, they are making more money than they are taking in.  And those profits are, as we all know, being used to prop up the opulent and profligate "jetset" lifestyle of the General Authorities, what with all of their mansions, beachfront condos, private jets, wild n' crazy parties, and so on.

Oh, wait.  That's not it.  The profits are being used to subsidize the Church's efforts in places like Africa and Latin America.

Quote

Every time a meatpacker buys cattle from a church-owned ranch in, say, Florida, a retailer leases space at downtown Salt Lake City’s City Creek Center, or a Mormon purchases a novel at Deseret Book, Quinn explains, they are helping the nearly 16 million-member faith expand overseas.

“My conclusion,” he adds, “is the international church could not exist to the extent that it does with buildings and services were it not for the commercial investments and for-profit businesses of the LDS Church.”

I think the Church's successful for-profit businesses are a very good thing, particularly given the modest lifestyle exhibited by the General Authorities.

And here:

Quote

This article by Peggy Fletcher Stack is about Quinn's most recent book: Historian digs into the hidden world of Mormon finances, shows how church went from losing money to making money — lots of it

Some excerpts:

Quote

Some Mormons — and plenty of others — were appalled to witness their church build a $1.5 billion mall in downtown Salt Lake City and hear their prophet proclaim, “Let’s go shopping.”

Isn’t religion, they argued, supposed to be about feeding the hungry and clothing the poor? How is selling Tiffany jewelry, Nordstrom cocktail dresses and luxury condos any part of a Christian faith?

Such critics, though, fail to understand Mormonism, says historian D. Michael Quinn. The American-born movement has always seen its mission as serving both the spiritual and physical needs of its people. It doesn’t distinguish between the two.

“It’s as spiritual [for Latter-day Saints] to give alms to the poor,” Quinn told Bloomberg Businessweek in 2012, “... as it is to make a million dollars.”

Hmm.  The gravamen the article is how the LDS Church uses its resources to build up its people and feed the hungry and clothe the poor, while not enriching the individuals leading the Church.  But you would be forgiven for not catching that based on these first few lines.

Quote

On that last score, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been wildly successful, says Quinn, author of the newly published “Mormon Hierarchy: Wealth & Corporate Power.”

The church, launched in 1830 in upstate New York with six members, counts nearly 16 million members worldwide — and untold billions in assets.

...

Quinn estimates — and estimating is about the best even a top-notch researcher can do — the church took in about $33 billion in tithing in 2010, based on a model of projected growth rates that followed a consistent pattern starting in the 1950s. It earns another $15 billion annually, he says, in returns on its profit-making investments. (The Bloomberg Businessweek piece from five years ago cited an investigation pegging the LDS Church’s worth at $40 billion.)

No matter the precise bottom line, these figures represent an astonishing accomplishment, Quinn says.

“It is an American success story without parallel,” the longtime historian says in an interview. “No institution, no church, no business, no nonprofit organization in America has had this kind of history.”

And despite this "success story" our critics regularly pillory the Church regarding its finances.  But if the Church's finances were being handled poorly, I suspect the critics would complain about that, too.

Darned if we do, darned if we don't.  The faultfinders are going to succeed in their endeavors regardless of what the Church does.

...

Quote

At the same time, Mormon authorities did not act like corporate giants, enriching themselves on profits.

Through the years, they paid themselves less than what others in their employ made, Quinn says. Today, that is sometimes barely half as much as some of the church’s skilled bureaucrats.

CEOs of other top nonprofits, including Harvard, Yale and the United Way, make almost 10 times as much, he says. “It was truly humbling to see these men who preside over an institution making tens of billions of dollars turning [the funds] back to the benefit of the rank and file.”

That fulfills what Mormon leader Brigham Young, known as the “Lion of the Lord,” said in 1875. At that time, Joseph Smith’s successor and his apostles signed a document, decrying America’s approach to unregulated capitalism, including the “growth of wealth in the hands of a comparatively few individuals.”

The country’s “priceless legacy,” they wrote, was “endangered by the monstrous power which this accumulation of wealth gives to a few individuals and a few powerful corporations.”

By pocketing such relatively small salaries and using church assets to serve the members, Quinn says, Mormon leaders have “maintained the spirit of that attitude.”

I think this is objectively and factually correct.  The leaders of the Church live fairly modest lifestyles.  They have access to literally billions of dollars.  They are in positions of authority which could allow them to allocate substantial portions of those funds to themselves.  And yet . . . they are not doing this.  

Our leaders are by no means perfect.  They make mistakes.  They are human.  But in terms of the financial management of the Church, they seem to be doing a very good job.  And yet . . . the critics will complain about this.

The above thread was started in October 2017.  And here we are, seven months later, re-plowing old ground.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[smac97]

52 minutes ago, rongo said:

Put it under the command of a Central Committee headed by Exiled, hope-for-things, and Marginal Gains. 

All of whom hide behind online pseudonyms.  None of whom has practiced the "transparency" principles they are demanding from others.

If they all upload PDFs of their last three years of tax returns (I will allow them to redact their social security numbers), then I will reconsider the legitimacy of their demands for others to demonstrage financial transparency.  Of course, the tax returns will only be a start.  I'll also want to see their bank accounts, investment portfolios, estate planning documents, inheritances, business interests, and so.  And even then...

'Cuz "transparency."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 23, 2018 by smac97

[rongo]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

CFR, please.  I have long understood that the Church differentiates utilization of different sources of income.  So I'd like to better understand what you are saying here.

And again, CFR, please.

CFRs don't do any good on this topic. And I'm not saying that either side is operating in bad faith. There is simply no way to document or prove to either side's satisfaction.

All Church money, from whatever source (donations, investments, interest, etc., etc.) are in one big account.

The Church uses internal categories to separate earmarked money from other earmarked money. 

Both are correct, and neither is wrong. Funds are fully fungible, from one vantage point, and non-fungible from another (the internal category one).

[The Nehor]

Oh, it is this thread again. Boring.

[JAHS]

48 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Bingo.  They don't have to and they don't want to.  But other major religious denominations don't have to but they do anyway.

Not sure how this relates to the entire church financials but in Great Britain the church is required to report it for what happens in that country so here it is.

LDS Church financial report in Great Britain

But can anyone really understand for sure what it all means? 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

I don't think the accounting labeling you are imagining actually exists. "Tithing revenue" is a type of revenue item, just like "realized capital gains," "dividends", and "interest income" are types of revenue. But once the revenue is collected, it is all mixed as part of the church's total assets which include, cash, bonds, land, stocks, commercial real estate, etc.

Most years, they receive more tithing revenue than they spend. The difference is invested in stocks and bonds, including the stocks and bonds it purchases from Deseret Management Corporation and other such corporations that  are used to capitalize them.

What about tax laws?  Are you suggesting that the church is mixing all revenue together between for profit businesses and tax exempt donations? 

Also, you may find some of the recent interviews that Mormon Stories did with Roger Hendrix.  He was asked about the tithing funds mixing with other revenue and he rejected that idea from his perspective.