Was Tithing Used to Fund City Creek?

[tulip]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

In the case of City Creek, was anyone else bidding to buy the property?  Are the stores in City Creek undercutting any local competition?

There are malls in Salt Lake City.  

[Robert F. Smith]

11 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

I agree.  Tithing was used and that is perfectly fine.  That's the purpose tithing.  City Creek furthers the work of the Church.  That is what tithing is supposed to do.

What I have a problem with is the Church playing word games and lying that these funds spent were not tithing funds.  

It is not a lie to say that tithing funds were not used, because they weren't.  The LDS Church has long invested monies into real estate and other businesses which produce greater value.  That's what investments are for (as in the parable of the talents), to grow the principal.  Having done that, one need only use that extra money for further investments.  Makes good practical sense, and City Creek is merely one more investment in a long line of good investments.  Banks and investment companies do exactly the same thing.  The only difference is that they are not eleemosynary institutions.  Since the LDS Church is a charitable institution, those investments mean that a great deal of good can be done with those reserve funds in the event of emergencies.  In fact, the LDS Church gives more money to charitable causes per capita than any other religious body (except maybe the Seventh Day Adventists, but I haven't examined their giving totals).

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

Everyone has an opinion, and without facts,  all we have is opinions.  In 2002, brother Hinckley was asked by German reporter Helmut Nemetchek why the church was not financially transparent.  Here is a portion of that transcript:

Helmut Nemetchek:       ‘In my country, we say the people’s Churches–the Protestants, the Catholics–they publish all their budgets, to all the public. ‘

Hinckley:  ‘Yeah. Yeah. ‘

Helmut Nemetschek:     ‘Why is it impossible for your Church? ‘

Hinckley:   ‘Well, we simply think that that information belongs to those who made the contribution, and not to the world. That’s the only thing. Yes. ‘”

(bolding mine)

Technically brother Hinckley said nothing that was untrue.  However, the message that was conveyed and the intent are questionable.  At best, this was a dodge.

Reference: 

Gordon B. Hinckley Interview – ZDF German Television

Salt Lake City, Utah January 29, 2002 Conducted by Helmut Nemetschek at 47 East South Temple

Of course LDS finances should be openly reported to the public, except for detailed contributions to specific named individuals who may need welfare, counseling, etc., but all the general categories should be lined out and audited by an independent firm -- just as the Billy Graham Evangelistic Assoc gets audited annually by an independent firm.  That might cause some problems in criticism from members and non-members, but that is to be expected.  There will always be second-guessing, just as there is now.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, tulip said:

There are malls in Salt Lake City.  

So?

[california boy]

So here is my opinion which I know I have really no right to express since I no longer contribute to the church.  

All money donated to the church is sacred money.  It should all be handled with prudence and care.  The church has done a great job of maximizing profits from excess money not needed to run the church.  I don't think anyone can dispute those two facts.

Whether to build a mall, or start an insurance company, buy investment property, purchase stock or whatever the church chooses to do with excess funds is a choice made by those that run and manage the church.  It is just like any other corporation.  Some companies stick to just a very narrow product line.  They focus all their energies on just making one widget.  Sometimes that works well and the company prospers.  Other times, that widget goes out of fashion and the company is bankrupt.  That is the danger of concentrating on just one product.  

The church chooses to go the business model of  diversification.  There is nothing wrong with that decision.  it just means that the focus is not on just one widget.  By nature, you have to focus on multiple other goals.  If the church leaders see a mall in downtown SLC as being important to fulfill it's mission and provide additional diversity to their investment portfolio, then that is the mantel given them by God and the members of the church to make such decisions.  If you believe God called these men to run the church, then let them run it the way they see fit. 

[Marginal Gains]

2 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

I agree.  Tithing was used and that is perfectly fine.  That's the purpose tithing.  City Creek furthers the work of the Church.  That is what tithing is supposed to do.

What I have a problem with is the Church playing word games and lying that these funds spent were not tithing funds.  

How does City Creek further the work of the Church?

[Marginal Gains]

Here is what Pres. Hinckley said:

Quote

 

I call attention to that which has received much notice in the local press. This is our decision to purchase the shopping mall property immediately to the south of Temple Square.

We feel we have a compelling responsibility to protect the environment of the Salt Lake Temple. The Church owns most of the ground on which this mall stands. The owners of the buildings have expressed a desire to sell. The property needs very extensive and expensive renovation. We have felt it imperative to do something to revitalize this area. But I wish to give the entire Church the assurance that tithing funds have not and will not be used to acquire this property. Nor will they be used in developing it for commercial purposes.

Funds for this have come and will come from those commercial entities owned by the Church. These resources, together with the earnings of invested reserve funds, will accommodate this program.

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2003/04/the-condition-of-the-church?lang=eng

Those two statements were (we now know thanks to Pres. Causse) contradictory.

[The Mean Farmer]

Still gnawing at that bone are we?

The longer this goes on the more people are convinced that a 5 year olds $0.25 and the literal Widows Mite were used to build CCM. 

They weren't

 

 

[Marginal Gains]

28 minutes ago, The Mean Farmer said:

Still gnawing at that bone are we?

The longer this goes on the more people are convinced that a 5 year olds $0.25 and the literal Widows Mite were used to build CCM. 

They weren't

 

 

Is that an opinion, or a statement of fact based on a knowledge of the financial records of the Church? If the latter, CFR.

[carbon dioxide]

19 hours ago, cinepro said:

Here is what FairMormon says in response to the question "Was the Church-funded redevelopment project in downtown Salt Lake City known as City Creek Center funded using tithing?"

Further supporting quotes are given, including this one:

 

Now, we have the recent statement from the Church, based on Presiding Bishop Causse's article, which says:

Are the first two sentences in the first paragraph referring to tithing money being "set aside" as a reserve?  If so, can we confidently (and boldly) say that "no tithing money is being used for construction of City Creek Center"?

 

I would think that the Church can set up multiple accounts for these reserves coming from difference sources.  I don't see these statements to change anything.  Perhaps it did use tithing money and perhaps it did not but can't know the question from this.

[DJBrown]

Do we understand that countless numbers of members of the church leave portions of their estates to the church upon their death.  This has been going on for 170+ years.  I believe this is a very under-appreciated reality.  And those donations are not tithing.  The jet donated by John Huntsman comes to mind (actually donated long before his recent death).  And considering how frugal and conscientious the leaders of the church are with money, I believe there is a vast amount of resources available to the church that has little to do with tithing.  I very much believe the statements from the church to the effect that they spent no tithing monies on City Creek.  

 

I also believe that the church does not want much focus on money and finances.  Rather, they are by far more interested in the temporal and spiritual well-being of God's children.  And given the enormous tendency for people to be caught up in sensational information (like big financial reserves), I think the church is wise to not publicize this information.

 

Another thought- temporal matters are just as important as spiritual matters in the big picture.  Preparing for a "rainy day" is fundamental to the church's philosophy and approach to both temporal and spiritual.  And given the fact that we very much expect rainy days ahead, it makes sense to me that the church does everything in its power to prepare.  We do not want to put ourselves in the position of being dependent upon others when we can avoid such dependence.

Edited May 25, 2018 by DJBrown

[Scott Lloyd]

11 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Everyone has an opinion, and without facts,  all we have is opinions.  In 2002, brother Hinckley was asked by German reporter Helmut Nemetchek why the church was not financially transparent.  Here is a portion of that transcript:

Helmut Nemetchek:       ‘In my country, we say the people’s Churches–the Protestants, the Catholics–they publish all their budgets, to all the public. ‘

Hinckley:  ‘Yeah. Yeah. ‘

Helmut Nemetschek:     ‘Why is it impossible for your Church? ‘

Hinckley:   ‘Well, we simply think that that information belongs to those who made the contribution, and not to the world. That’s the only thing. Yes. ‘”

(bolding mine)

Technically brother Hinckley said nothing that was untrue.  However, the message that was conveyed and the intent are questionable.  At best, this was a dodge.

Reference: 

Gordon B. Hinckley Interview – ZDF German Television

Salt Lake City, Utah January 29, 2002 Conducted by Helmut Nemetschek at 47 East South Temple

President Hinckley is absolutely right in this. The Church of Jesus Christ is not a tax-supported entity. Its financials are not the business of those who do not make donations. If you don’t trust the Church to use the money properly, don’t donate. Very simple.

I’m not altogether sure what your point is with this. 

Edited May 25, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

President Hinckley is absolutely right in this. The Church of Jesus Christ is not a tax-supported entity. It’s financials are not the business of those who do not make donations.

Well, to be fair, those who make donations are just as much in the dark about the financials as those who don't.

This doesn't bother me; I'm fine with what the Brethren do and don't disclose to us. But the argument that donors get more info than non-donors isn't accurate. 

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, rongo said:

Well, to be fair, those who make donations are just as much in the dark about the financials as those who don't.

This doesn't bother me; I'm fine with what the Brethren do and don't disclose to us. But the argument that donors get more info than non-donors isn't accurate. 

I’m fine with it too. I dare say your and my attitude reflects the vast majority of faithful tithepayers. 

So if it’s not an issue with those who, some might argue, have a right to be concerned with it, it’s a moot point. 

I’ll say this: I’m far more worried about the intent of some of those who are clamoring for the Church to open its books for public gaze than I am about what the Church does with the money. In short, I trust the Church; I don’t trust the clamorers. 

Edited May 25, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

10 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

Where did the original money come from, smac?  Tithing. It is a flat out lie that tithing money was not used to build City Creak. 

Things like "flat out lie" in situations like this, where reasonable minds can disagree, makes people like me take people like you take people like you less seriously.

Quote

EVERYTHING the Church has built or will ever build will be paid for with tithing.

By that reckoning it is a "flat out lie" that I have ever earned any income.  My parents paid for all my needs during childhood.  I then went into the Army, and then on a mission, then to college, then to college again, and now here I am.  But I never would have been able to get to college without my parents' financial support.  So my income from my job really isn't mine.  It's my parents.

Of course, my parents started out with their parents supporting them, so they never made any income, either.  And neither did my grandparents, who relied on my great-grandparents, and so on, ad infinitum.

By your reasoning, my salary isn't attributable to anything I have done.  "EVERYTHING" that I have done or ever will do was paid for by my parents, and grandparents, and so on. 

That's your reasoning.  And it doesn't seem to hold up well.

I am reminded here of the Parable of the Talents:

Quote

14 ¶ For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.
15 And unto one he gave five talents ... and straightway took his journey.
16 Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.
...
19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.
20 And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.
21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

So let's postulate about this servant.  He starts with ten talents.  He keeps the original five talents given to him by his lord in one Bag 1, and the additional five talents he earned in Bag 2.

The servant then goes out and uses the five talents from Bag 2 to buy and ox and some seeds and a field, and uses the former to plow and sow the latter.  He then tends the field, reaps a harvest, and ends up earning 15 talents.

The servant now has twenty talents, five of which remain in Bag 1, and fifteen in Bag 2.

So the question is this: Did the servant use any of the money from Bag 1 to earn the fifteen talents in Bag 2?  Well, no, he did not.  He used the original five talents in Bag 2 to earn an additional ten talents, also put into Bag 2.  The servant reports as much to the tax collector, who collects taxes on the fifteen talents in Bag 2 (the money in Bag 1 is not taxable under the laws of the land, so the collector leaves it alone).

However, let's say that the servant has a neighbor who harbors some genuine spite and antipathy for the servant.  The neighbor is looking for any reason, any argument to find fault with the servant.  So the neighbor publicly accuses the neighbor of "flat out lying" to the tax collector.  The tax collector speaks with the servant, determines that only money from Bag 2 was used to buy the ox and seeds and field, and then determines that since only money from Bag 2 was used for the crop venture, the servant was speaking truthfully and accurately, and the neighbor had borne false witness (perhaps ignorantly).

The neighbor, thwarted in his efforts to harm by the servant, is furious.  "He lied!" he shrieks.  "Full stop!"  The tax collector is confused as to why the neighbor is being such a meddlesome busybody and intruding into the affairs of the servant and his lord (particularly since the servant has fully complied with the laws of the land).  The collector just shrugs at the neighbor's ranting and false accusations and moves on to the next town.

The servant, meanwhile, is preparing the next venture to turn the 15 talents into 25.  In the days and weeks ahead, he keeps the five talents in Bag 1, and does not use them for commercial ventures.  He does, however, occasionally transfer talents from Bag 2 to Bag 1, as needed.

Food for thought.

Quote

It does not matter that the dollar spent today may be the results of a tithing investment in 1877.  It is still tithing.  Full stop.

Tell that to the IRS.

Quote

Or perhaps you can cite a scripture that states the increase on investments is to be treated differently than the original capital.

I encourage you to read this blog article written by an accountant: The Folly of LDS Church Financial Transparency

A relevant excerpt:

Quote

What About The Church’s Other Businesses?

Here comes a bigger sticking point: does the Church really need all these other businesses?

This is a point where reasonable people can disagree. I believe all the businesses, or at least virtually all of them, were started back in the day when the Saints could only rely upon themselves. Many are good organizations and can be used to help others (i.e. Deseret Industries, Orange Farms out in Florida, etc.). Some are designed more as Public Relations item than anything else. The biggest example of that latter point is the $1.5 billion mall in Salt Lake City. Was it necessary? I don’t know. What I do know is that downtown Salt Lake City represents the LDS Church in many people’s mind, and if it’s run down, dingy affair, many will see the Church as run down, dingy affair. It may not be fair and it may not be right, but that is the way it is.

Back to the point, are these business necessary? My guess would be “no.” It’s not really related to this transparency conversation, but as long as they’re not losing money or distracting from the missions of the LDS Church, it seems unnecessary to jettison them. Besides, selling them off and giving all the money to the poor might be a nice one year boondoggle, but if you run the business so you can continually help people, it seems like it’s all the better.

Like Jesus said, we have the poor always with us, even if we give out a Scrooge McDuck-worthy pile of money (he might not have said that last part).

I had my dad read through this article before posting since he has a lot of experience with finances, and he made another good point that should be added here. Like many charitable groups or scholarship funds, the Church prefers to invest its cash and run operations off generated interest. It’s a good way to run things when you want to be conservative (small c) with your operations and more or less guarantee a set amount of money to keep things going every year.

So how do you invest that money? Well, you could buy real estate, you could invest in stocks and bonds, or you could put the money in the bank. Each one of those has a downside (real estate market could crash, company could be caught up in a scandal or release a caffeinated drink, etc.). The safest, of course, is a bank, but the funds are only insured up to $250,000, and they don’t pay very much in interest (a little over a percent right now).

And what will the bank do with the money? Invest it in real estate and stocks and bonds, taking a large percentage of the interest generated for their time and efforts.

Why not invest the money yourself, which removes the bank’s portion, giving you more to help with your goals? That’s basically what the Church did with the City Creek Mall, with the added bonus of giving them control over the downtown area. Plus helping generate jobs for those hired by the mall isn’t a bad benefit, either.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 25, 2018 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

Where did the original money come from, smac?  Tithing. It is a flat out lie that tithing money was not used to build City Creak.  EVERYTHING the Church has built or will ever build will be paid for with tithing.

It does not matter that the dollar spent today may be the results of a tithing investment in 1877.  It is still tithing.  Full stop.

Or perhaps you can cite a scripture that states the increase on investments is to be treated differently than the original capital.

 

9 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

I agree.  Tithing was used and that is perfectly fine.  That's the purpose tithing.  City Creek furthers the work of the Church.  That is what tithing is supposed to do.

What I have a problem with is the Church playing word games and lying that these funds spent were not tithing funds.  

I think it is you who are playing word games by over complicating the matter and then accusing the Brethren of lying. 

I wish you displayed a fraction of the loyalty for them that you do for your bishop with his quirky directive disallowing the presence of personal electronic devices in the chapel. 

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Things like "flat out lie" in situations like this, where reasonable minds can disagree, makes people like me take people like you take people like you less seriously.

By that reckoning it is a "flat out lie" that I have ever earned any income.  My parents paid for all my needs during childhood.  I then went into the Army, and then on a mission, then to college, then to college again, and now here I am.  But I never would have been able to get to college without my parents' financial support.  So my income from my job really isn't mine.  It's my parents.

Of course, my parents started out with their parents supporting them, so they never made any income, either.  And neither did my grandparents, who relied on my great-grandparents, and so on, ad infinitum.

By your reasoning, my salary isn't attributable to anything I have done.  "EVERYTHING" that I have done or ever will do was paid for by my parents, and grandparents, and so on. 

That's your reasoning.  And it doesn't seem to hold up well.

I am reminded here of the Parable of the Talents:

So let's postulate about this servant.  He starts with ten talents.  He keeps the original five talents given to him by his lord in one Bag 1, and the additional five talents he earned in Bag 2.

The servant then goes out and uses the five talents from Bag 2 to buy and ox and some seeds a field, and uses the former to plow the latter.  He then sows the seeds, tends the field, reaps a harvest, and ends up earning 15 talents.

The servant now has twenty talents, five of which remain in Bag 1, and fifteen in Bag 2.

So the question is this: Did the servant use any of the money from Bag 1 to earn the fifteen talents in Bag 2?  Well, no, he did not.  He used the original five talents in Bag 2 to earn an additional ten talents, also put into Bag 2.  The servant reports as much to the tax collector, who collects taxes on the fifteen talents in Bag 2 (the money in Bag 1 is not taxable under the laws of the land, so the collector leaves it alone).

However, let's say that the servant has a neighbor who harbors some genuine spite and antipathy for the servant.  The neighbor is looking for any reason, any argument to find fault with the servant.  So the neighbor publicly accuses the neighbor of "flat out lying" to the tax collector.  The tax collector speaks with the servant, determines that only money from Bag 2 was used to buy the ox and seeds and field, and then determines that since only money from Bag 2 was used for the crop venture, the servant was speaking truthfully and accurately, and the neighbor had borne false witness (perhaps ignorantly).

The neighbor, thwarted in his efforts to harm by the servant, is furious.  "He lied!" he shrieks.  "Full stop!"  The tax collector is confused as to why the neighbor is being such a meddlesome busybody and intruding into the affairs of the servant and his lord (particularly since the servant has fully complied with the laws of the land).  The collector just shrugs at the neighbor's ranting and false accusations and moves on to the next town.

The servant, meanwhile, is preparing the next venture to turn the 15 talents into 25.  In the days and weeks ahead, he keeps the five talents in Bag 1, and does not use them for commercial ventures.  He does, however, occasionally transfer talents from Bag 2 to Bag 1, as needed.

Food for thought.

Tell that to the IRS.

I encourage you to read this blog article written by an accountant: The Folly of LDS Church Financial Transparency

A relevant excerpt:

Thanks,

-Smac

Let me just say this is a brilliant rebuttal — the best I’ve seen — to the tithing-pays-for-everything sophistry. Bravo!

[Duncan]

What the Church gives me, in return, for what I have given it is unbalanced. When I went on my mission they flew me from Canada to Utah and then to LA and then back to Canada and provided me with accommodations and money every month. I figure the least I could do is pay whatever for all that!

[cinepro]

32 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

President Hinckley is absolutely right in this. The Church of Jesus Christ is not a tax-supported entity. Its financials are not the business of those who do not make donations. If you don’t trust the Church to use the money properly, don’t donate. Very simple.

I’m not altogether sure what your point is with this. 

As you seem to imply, the financials are the "business" of those who do donate.  It's not a matter of "trust."  It's a matter of being told that we can't go to the Temple if we don't pay, and having an understanding of the range of fallibility of the leaders in financial matters.

The odd thing to me is that I would think the leaders would be anxious to be totally open and transparent with the finances (as they were in the past).  If I were receiving donations on behalf of God, and managing that money in His name, and telling people that they needed to donate money to me because it is God's money and He wants me to have it and manage it for Him (and possibly even with his guidance), then I would want to tell everyone how much I've got and what I'm doing with it.  

[Exiled]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m fine with it too. I dare say your and my attitude reflects the vast majority of faithful tithepayers. 

So if it’s not an issue with those who arguably have a right to be concerned with it, it’s a moot point. 

I’ll say this: I’m far more worried about the intent of some of those who are clamoring for the Church to open its books for public gaze than I am about what the Church does with the money. In short, I trust the Church; I don’t trust the clamorers. 

So, how would the "clamorers" misuse the information if the church really has nothing to hide?  Why don't you trust them?  If money comes in and only goes to BYU, temples, etc., what is the problem with disclosure?  You and the other believers would be vindicated and I would be satisfied with that.  Disclosure would certainly ease suspicion and allow the church to be above reproach.  No one would be able to complain whether or not the shopping mall purchase came from tithing.  Isn't that a good thing?

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, cinepro said:

As you seem to imply, the financials are the "business" of those who do donate.  It's not a matter of "trust."  It's a matter of being told that we can't go to the Temple if we don't pay, and having an understanding of the range of fallibility of the leaders in financial matters.

The odd thing to me is that I would think the leaders would be anxious to be totally open and transparent with the finances (as they were in the past).  If I were receiving donations on behalf of God, and managing that money in His name, and telling people that they needed to donate money to me because it is God's money and He wants me to have it and manage it for Him (and possibly even with his guidance), then I would want to tell everyone how much I've got and what I'm doing with it.  

Here you are conflating two issues: worthiness to be admitted to the temple and having the Church open its books to public gaze. I don’t concede the connection. 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, Exiled said:

So, how would the "clamorers" misuse the information if the church really has nothing to hide?  Why don't you trust them?  If money comes in and only goes to BYU, temples, etc., what is the problem with disclosure?  You and the other believers would be vindicated and I would be satisfied with that.  Disclosure would certainly ease suspicion and allow the church to be above reproach.  No one would be able to complain whether or not the shopping mall purchase came from tithing.  Isn't that a good thing?

I think it’s axiomatic that those who are openly or secretly hostile to the Church of Jesus Christ are not to be trusted with sensitive or proprietary information. 

[Atheist Mormon]

Quote

That is a reasonable concern, since people who donate to the church expect that money to be used to build the church.

If I was an active member,  investing money in City Creek Mall or Salt Lake City would get my 100% support.....How many cities in USA look as well  maintained and  clean as SL? 

Quote

Besides, selling them off and giving all the money to the poor might be a nice

I don't  think  so.....

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Quote

Besides, selling them off and giving all the money to the poor  might be a nice

If I was an active member,  investing money in City Creek Mall or Salt Lake City would get my 100% support.....How many cities in USA look as well  maintained and  clean as SL? 

This was addressed here: The Folly of LDS Church Financial Transparency (emphasis added):

Quote

What About The Church’s Other Businesses?

Here comes a bigger sticking point: does the Church really need all these other businesses?

This is a point where reasonable people can disagree. I believe all the businesses, or at least virtually all of them, were started back in the day when the Saints could only rely upon themselves. Many are good organizations and can be used to help others (i.e. Deseret Industries, Orange Farms out in Florida, etc.). Some are designed more as Public Relations item than anything else. The biggest example of that latter point is the $1.5 billion mall in Salt Lake City. Was it necessary? I don’t know. What I do know is that downtown Salt Lake City represents the LDS Church in many people’s mind, and if it’s run down, dingy affair, many will see the Church as run down, dingy affair. It may not be fair and it may not be right, but that is the way it is.

Back to the point, are these business necessary? My guess would be “no.” It’s not really related to this transparency conversation, but as long as they’re not losing money or distracting from the missions of the LDS Church, it seems unnecessary to jettison them. Besides, selling them off and giving all the money to the poor might be a nice one year boondoggle, but if you run the business so you can continually help people, it seems like it’s all the better.

Like Jesus said, we have the poor always with us, even if we give out a Scrooge McDuck-worthy pile of money (he might not have said that last part).

I had my dad read through this article before posting since he has a lot of experience with finances, and he made another good point that should be added here. Like many charitable groups or scholarship funds, the Church prefers to invest its cash and run operations off generated interest. It’s a good way to run things when you want to be conservative (small c) with your operations and more or less guarantee a set amount of money to keep things going every year.

So, should the Church give out a "nice one year boondoggle," or should it instead be a responsible steward of the Church's funds, thus allowing it to help the poor year in and year out?

I will once again refer interested persons to D. Michael Quinn's The Mormon Hierarchy: Wealth and Corporate Power (discussed at some length here).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 25, 2018 by smac97

[Exiled]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think it’s axiomatic that those who are openly or secretly hostile to the Church of Jesus Christ are not to be trusted with sensitive or proprietary information. 

That's fine, you don't have to answer.  I think it's axiomatic that a church of all organizations should publicly disclose what it is doing with the Lord's money so all can see the Lord's servants in action and learn therefrom.  What a blessing it would be to see the inner workings of the Lord's church and how the Lord runs his finances.  I'm sure it would be faith-promoting.