Church Finances---official source

[Analytics]

22 minutes 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.

Please see the following link. https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-finances-and-a-growing-global-church

According to that source, the church's budget is made according to the following guidelines:

• Expenditures will not exceed forecasted revenue.
• The budget for operating expenses will not increase at a more rapid rate than anticipated tithing contributions.

The only way this is guaranteed to be a viable policy is if "forecasted revenue" is primarily tithing revenue. Indeed, from the same site, "the vast majority of its financial resources comes from the tithes and offerings of Church members."

Money is intrinsically fungible.

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And again, CFR, please.

Again, please see this link: https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-finances-and-a-growing-global-church

At that site, it talks about the Church's reserves. Church members are taught to “gradually build a financial reserve by regularly saving [a portion of their income]” (Providing in the Lord’s Way: Summary of a Leader’s Guide to Welfare [booklet, 2009], 2). The Church applies this same principle in its own savings and investments. In addition to food and emergency supplies, the Church also sets aside funds each year for future needs. These funds are added to Church reserves, which include stocks and bonds, taxable businesses, agricultural interests and commercial and residential property. Investments can be accessed in times of hardship.

In that site, they ask the question, "where does the money for the Church's reserves come from?" They answer the question by saying, "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."

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

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

Tax it. That'll at least put a little pressure on it. The members will have to do the rest

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

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. 

 

Its happened in other countries, and the trend in society seems to be towards more transparency over time.  I think it will eventually happen in the USA too.  

[Exiled]

59 minutes ago, Amulek said:

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

This is totally a rational fear. 

I figured there would be some sort of straw man response, exaggerating what I said. In any event the church exerts too much control over the Utah legislature. I guess you aren't bothered by that. Anyway, doesn't it bother you that your church doesn't respect you enough to tell you what it brings in? 

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, Maidservant said:

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.

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.

Why does the Lord need so much money? One would think the Lord could finance things on his own.  Why didn't the Lord give the brethren some invention that they could use to finance the church? Back in the day, perhaps the Lord could have revealed the holy brand computer that the brethren could have used to finance the temples and whatnot, instead of taking away the widow's mite?

[hope_for_things]

59 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

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 appreciate the honesty, but I'm wondering if you manage your personal finances in the same way as you're saying the church should manage theirs.  For example, unless you are extremely wealthy, you probably do care very much how much you'd pay for things like a house or a car or the furnishings in your house.  If you're like me and most others you probably have a budget and you probably prioritize your spending towards the things you believe provide your family the most value.  

I'm guessing you wouldn't personally wouldn't spend money on luxury items at the expense of helping one of your kids attend school, or in exchange for helping a hungry child in your care.  

There is another phenomenon I think happening here with large numbers.  When I first learned about this it made me very sad, but I see it happening all the time, and humans need to better understand this flaw in how we think.  

Quote

As the number of victims in a tragedy increases, our empathy, our willingness to help, reliably decreases. This happens even when the number of victims increases from one to two.

https://www.vox.com/explainers/2017/7/19/15925506/psychic-numbing-paul-slovic-apathy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychic_numbing

 

[ksfisher]

58 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Tax it. That'll at least put a little pressure on it. The members will have to do the rest

So you want to tax charitable organizations?  Or only churches? 

Either way the dollars that are paid in taxes will decrease the amount of money that can be spent on welfare and humanitarian aid. 

I work for a food bank.  Do you really want to food bank to be paying taxes instead of using that money to feed people? 

Do you really want to government to be getting a cut of the money that people are donating to charities or religious organizations?

Edited May 23, 2018 by ksfisher

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

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).

I can understand this concern.

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

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

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.

I don't think so.

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.

"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?

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

Your responses are what I pretty much expected.

[sunstoned]

7 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

 

Without transparency, they can (and do) say anything they want.

[sunstoned]

4 hours ago, SteveO said:

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

You are correct.  Lack of transparency = no accountability.  

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Your responses are what I pretty much expected.

Setting aside hounding about personal tax returns, do you advocate taxing all churches? And if so (I assume the answer is yes), how exactly should they be taxed? What would that look like? Assessed property value? Flat tax? Capital gains?

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Why does the Lord need so much money? One would think the Lord could finance things on his own.  Why didn't the Lord give the brethren some invention that they could use to finance the church? Back in the day, perhaps the Lord could have revealed the holy brand computer that the brethren could have used to finance the temples and whatnot, instead of taking away the widow's mite?

Given what you (should) know about the gospel that the LDS church teaches (the need for faith and choosing God above all else being two of the top principles), you shouldn't need to ask why God wouldn't just give his church everything without the members needing to exercise faith or sacrifice.  Whether or not you agree with it, the LDS answer should be pretty obvious.

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

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.). 

The problem, I suspect, is that Elder Oaks could be counting hours that Church members spend serving in the Church as "donated labor."  If we're counting teaching a Sunday School class or doing Temple Work the same as picking up trash on the side of the road or volunteering at a homeless shelter, we should be clear about that.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

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).

I can understand this concern.

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

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

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.

I don't think so.

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.

"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?

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

 

14 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Your responses are what I pretty much expected.

So you have no rational reply, then?

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

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. 

 

You do realize that 501(c) non-profits do have to disclose their financial statements, right?  It's done on a Form 990.  It's only churches that have a special exemption from this requirement.

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/public-disclosure-and-availability-of-exempt-organizations-returns-and-applications-documents-subject-to-public-disclosure

 

 

[cinepro]

This is an extremely relevant article in a law journal about the exemption churches have from public disclosure laws, and the arguments that they should not be exempt:

 

THE LAW AND FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY IN CHURCHES: RECONSIDERING THE FORM 990 EXEMPTION

Quote

Most tax-exempt organizations are required to file the IRS Form 990, an information return that is open to the public. The Form 990 is used by watchdogs and donors to learn detailed financial information about charities. However, churches are exempt from filing the Form 990 and need not disclose any financial information to the IRS, the public, or their donors. In December 2012, the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability recommended to Senator Charles Grassley that Congress should preserve the exemption, despite recent financial scandals at churches.

Examining the legislative history, this Article argues that the primary function of the information return has become its utility to donors, and policymakers have recognized the role that public access can play in keeping nonprofits honest and efficient. Unfortunately, because churches do not have to be transparent or accountable, few of them are.

Using research and insights from sociology, this Article contends that because of their opacity and the unique nature of religious authority, churches are more likely to foster and shelter malfeasance. Churchgoers are unlikely to challenge leaders because doing so can endanger their position in the religious community, making it imperative that transparency be mandated by outside authorities. Ironically, increased transparency may actually be good for churches because, as studies suggest, it is likely to increase donations and because, by minimizing opportunities for financial improprieties, it may preserve the religious experience of churchgoers. In addition, transparency is consistent with the teaching of many Christian leaders and with the expressed preferences of a large portion of churchgoers.

 

[pogi]

31 minutes ago, cinepro said:

The problem, I suspect, is that Elder Oaks could be counting hours that Church members spend serving in the Church as "donated labor."  If we're counting teaching a Sunday School class or doing Temple Work the same as picking up trash on the side of the road or volunteering at a homeless shelter, we should be clear about that.

I don’t suspect he is counting church service hours.  If you include those, we would be in the hundreds of millions of hours donated annually. 

Think of the missionary effort alone.  About 70,000 missionaries donating around 2,080 hours (equivalent to 40hrs/week, which we all know missionaries are probably closer to 60hrs/week or more) each, annually - that equates to around 146 million hours donated annually from the missionaries alone.  When you include the weekly hours donated in church service for the rest of the millions of active members, and temple service - the donated hours are staggering!  Nowhere close to the 25 million hours that he quoted! 

Edited May 23, 2018 by pogi

[cinepro]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don’t suspect he is counting church service hours.  If you include those, we would be in the hundreds of millions of hours donated annually. 

Think of the missionary effort alone.  About 70,000 missionaries donating around 2,080 hours (equivalent to 40hrs/week, which we all know missionaries are probably closer to 60hrs/week or more) each, annually - that equates to around 146 million hours donated annually from the missionaries alone.  When you include the weekly hours donated in church service for the rest of the millions of active members, and temple service - the donated hours are staggering!  Nowhere close to the 25 million hours that he quoted! 

Yeah, I didn't do the math.  If all the active members just did a few hours of service a year, then it wouldn't be hard to reach 25 million hours.

[pogi]

13 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Yeah, I didn't do the math.  If all the active members just did a few hours of service a year, then it wouldn't be hard to reach 25 million hours.

Yep.  I think the 25 million hours/year is a super conservative number.  The humanitarian service missionaries alone probably reach that number each year easily. 

Quote

Key humanitarian initiatives include clean water, vision treatment, wheelchair provision, neonatal resuscitation, and disaster relief. Other initiatives include immunizations, family enrichment programs, and family food production.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LDS_Humanitarian_Services

I work in international travel medicine.  In the last week alone, I have seen dozens of HEFY youth from our church going to Colombia, India, Bolivia, Fiji, Ecuador, Brazil, Guatemala, Ghana, Peru, etc. etc., donating their time and money (about $2-4 thousand, depending on where they are going) to spend 2 weeks of their lives, going to some of the most remote and potentially dangerous areas of the world to build school houses, work in orphanages, build homes, work on clean water projects, etc.  Over 1,000 youth from our church (ages 16-19) do this every year.  Think of all the hours donated to disaster relief efforts.  For scouts, we do a service project every month (I doubt those are counted). Missionaries are increasingly donating more and more time to humanitarian work...I doubt those are counted.   25 million annually is very, very conservative. 

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

So you have no rational reply, then?

I do. He created a strawman to exaggerate what I said. I'm frankly surprised he didn't accuse me of supporting the killing of puppies and kitties.

The church claims to be the kingdom of god on earth and wants to fill the earth like the rock cut without hands. Assuming the church attains that status some day, will it still persist in hiding its revenues? Would it act like it does in the state of Utah in the country or the world as far as politics? As it gets more money, what are its intentions regarding social issues? Are we to expect more fighting lgtb rights, etc? Is it a benign church or does it want to pursue the counsel of 50 goals still? It is probably small now but where will it be in 50 years? What is its financial growth rate? Can we expect it to top out or continue to grow? How about a little disclosure to let us know?

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Given what you (should) know about the gospel that the LDS church teaches (the need for faith and choosing God above all else being two of the top principles), you shouldn't need to ask why God wouldn't just give his church everything without the members needing to exercise faith or sacrifice.  Whether or not you agree with it, the LDS answer should be pretty obvious.

Yes, but I already knew the robotic response. I just find it interesting that god always needs gobs and gobs of our hard earned money.

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Setting aside hounding about personal tax returns, do you advocate taxing all churches? And if so (I assume the answer is yes), how exactly should they be taxed? What would that look like? Assessed property value? Flat tax? Capital gains?

Tax it like other businesses because that is what they really are.

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

So you want to tax charitable organizations?  Or only churches? 

Either way the dollars that are paid in taxes will decrease the amount of money that can be spent on welfare and humanitarian aid. 

I work for a food bank.  Do you really want to food bank to be paying taxes instead of using that money to feed people? 

Do you really want to government to be getting a cut of the money that people are donating to charities or religious organizations?

To be a charity, full disclosure of what is being done with the donated money is a must if society is going to give out a tax break.

[ksfisher]

7 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Tax it like other businesses because that is what they really are.

 

5 minutes ago, Exiled said:

To be a charity, full disclosure of what is being done with the donated money is a must if society is going to give out a tax break.

This sounds like a great deal for the government.  Tax my dollar that I donate to the church, then tax it again when the church gets it.

 

[carbon dioxide]

9 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

The response doesn’t actually answer the question. We still don’t know “why” “the Church chooses not to publish the details of its finances”.

What does the church have to gain from it?  Most members do not care about the details and those that care the most will nitpick things and ask "Why so much money for this and that?"  It may be that it just easier not to publish it than have to deal with constant questions from various people and the constant headache is just not worth it.