The Church has $32 Billion in the Stock Market

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This televangelist is asking his followers to pay $54 million for a new jet so that he can do God's work. It sounds like an obscene amount of money for a luxury item but he's being transparent about how he plans to spend the $54 million. This gives his followers the ability to choose whether or not they believe it is really God's will to buy this jet, and then make their donations based on full information.

Transparency is a good thing. Knowing that the church is going to spend $xxxx on a temple, or a jet, or invest in the market, is a good thing.

 

If you want to laud (the aptly-named) Creflo Dollar for his transparency while, at the same time, faulting the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for its alleged lack of transparency, I suppose you could always vote with your feet and show your appreciation for Good Ol' Creflo's transparency by joining The Church of the Almighty Dollar.

Best wishes!

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

If true, then all the more a problem.  Apparently Warren Buffett alone has given more to charitable causes than the Church has ever given.  Per capita, apparently, the Church is way behind in giving.  

That seems like you have insight into their assets just as you seem to have insight into the Church's finances.  How'd you get that access?  I thought one of the main complaints here is the Church is not being transparent.  The tone of your post seems to want to defend the Church lacking transparency, but apparently you know that which none of us know.  

Sure.  Break it all down and make a comparison.  That'd be nice.  BUt apparently these billionaires have been more transparent than the Church.  As of now the comparison doesn't seem possible because we have no access to Church info.  

I know of no evidence that all those billionaires are more transparent than the LDS Church, and  they are not required to be.  Like Donald Trump, they are very secretive.

My point was that you are recklessly comparing apples and oranges, institutions and individuals, etc.  Even with the available information on LDS finances, it is clear that nearly all assets are in real estate (chapels, temples), long-term investments, and private corporations which grow beef and agriculture -- including possibly the largest ranches in the world.  These are not liquid assets which can just be spent all of a sudden, which would be a stupid use of resources anyhow, since the LDS Church is in it for the long term.  If you are interested in optimal charitable giving, then you should take that all into consideration.  Also, if you are really serious about understanding LDS Church finances, it might be well for you to read Mike Quinn's recent book on the subject.  I have not.

However, there is all the difference in the world between the holdings of Warren Buffett (one of the richest men in the world) and the LDS Church.  For one thing, his assets are not mostly tied up in vast real estate holdings.  He doesn't build and operate temples and chapels worldwide.  He doesn't operate bishop's storehouses worldwide.  You bring no sense of perspective to the discussion.

There is also a powerful philosophical difference:  The LDS Church approaches the betterment of the human race from a perspective which emphasizes teaching men to fish rather than just giving them fish, in helping people to be good, rather than just doing temporary good.  In the long run, a moral and educational rearmament is much more important than just doling out cash.  That is why the Church is spending so much money on a vast, worldwide educational program, and on preaching the Gospel.  You might want to step back and look at all this from another, more holistic perspective.  After all the raison d'etre of the LDS Church is religious in nature, not simply eleemosynary.

[mrmarklin]

I thought the Church was rich. That’s 😂only around $2,000 for each of us. 

Edited May 31, 2018 by mrmarklin

[kllindley]

36 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I could offer opinion pieces that say it is a subsidy, but that’s a distraction from the point.  The benefit that churches receive from tax exempt status is significant preferential treatment and churches realize this and will fight to keep this benefit.  All tax payers in the USA have an interest in tax policies like this that provide significant financial benefits to large institutions.  

Couldn't this be said for any financial benefits? Like tax benefits to parents? As a tax payer, don't I have an interest in knowing how that money is spent? How about welfare benefits? The list goes on and on, 

 

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I haven’t heard anyone anywhere calling for Stake and Ward level financial transparency, where did you get that from?  

I’d start with looking at the financial disclosures required for churches in other countries like the UK or Canada.  

You said you are simply arguing for transparency as a principle that is good and right. I'm simply pointing out that there are limits to the benefits of transparency. If transparency is so wonderful, why not go all the way?

Are you saying that if the Church published the info in the UK report for the US, that you'd be satisfied? Or is that just a starting point for you? Where do you propose we stop?

[provoman]

37 minutes ago, tulip said:

with all this money, can we hire some janitors!  

yes please

[smac97]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So it wouldn't bother you if a substantial $$$$ of consecrated tithing funds were lost in the stock market? I find that to be a very strange position.

If the Church was playing fast and loose with sacred funds, I think you might have a point.  But there's no evidence of that.  The Church appears to have a conservative and diversified stock portfolio.  The Church appears to be an excellent steward of its finances (just ask D. Michael Quinn).  

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The process of investing $$ so that they (and the interest) can be used at a later date reflects an opportunity cost. For example, the church doesn't build a temple or donate to a charity today, with the hope that it will be able to grow the dollars and build more temples and donate more to charity in the future. If those tithing funds are lost, then it would appear the opportunity cost was too high and it would have been better to build the temple and make the donation today.

But there is also an opportunity cost in parking money in a bank account that only generates enough interest to break even with inflation (and sometimes not even then).  

The Parable of the Talents appears to be relevant here.  The story does not go into detail, but the two wise stewards were able to invest their talents (five and two, respectively) in order to create additional wealth for their lord.  Meanwhile, the one who buried his talent, who did nothing to "grow" that which was given to his stewardship, was deemed a "wicked and slothful servant" (Matthew 25:26).

Surely there is some middle ground to be found here.  Enough "risk" to create growth, but not so much as to imperil the Church's fiscal health.  And to be honest, I think the Church largely stays within this middle ground.

Of all the things to find fault with the Church about, its management of its finances appears to be one of the less apt.  It's doing a very good job.

-Smac

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Well, it just shows how we operate today is very different than the early Christians.  

As for asking the poor for tithing, I'm not aware of any different policies with respect to how the poor are asked to give tithing by church leaders and in conference talks and official correlated LDS teachings today, although I am aware of some different language in the past.  If you are aware of something, please share.  

I have heard talks in which members claim that paying their tithing first resulted in "pennies from heaven," in some sense, but those people were not facing abject poverty and disease.  I personally know a BYU employee who decided (with his wife) to double their fast offering one month.  That was followed immediately by a raise at BYU.  So they doubled it yet again the following month, and, voila, another raise at BYU.  However, I have no insight into whether those events were a reward direct from God, or just happenstantial.  Was it faith, or a mere statistical hit?  And how would we know?

What I have a very hard time believing is the suggestion you are making that LDS people who have virtually nothing in a third world country are being told stridently that they should pay their tithing first.  Is that a fact, or mere speculation?  Is the LDS Church a fundamentally cruel and oppressive organization?  On par with, say, Scientology.

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, kllindley said:

You said you are simply arguing for transparency as a principle that is good and right. I'm simply pointing out that there are limits to the benefits of transparency. If transparency is so wonderful, why not go all the way?

Are you saying that if the Church published the info in the UK report for the US, that you'd be satisfied? Or is that just a starting point for you? Where do you propose we stop?

I don't think there is any limiting principle being offered here.  This is one of the reasons I find the calls for something as vague and nebulous as "transparency," particularly from people who are so regularly and publicly (and anonymously) critical of and opposed to the Church, to be something less than forthright.

Keeping the demands for "transparency" nice and vague allow the self-appointed arbiters of the Church's behavior to shift the goal posts.  Anything the Church does will never be enough.  Our critics will just demand more, and more and more.  That's the nature of faultfinding.

I'd love to be proven wrong, though.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 31, 2018 by smac97

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Couldn't this be said for any financial benefits? Like tax benefits to parents? As a tax payer, don't I have an interest in knowing how that money is spent? How about welfare benefits? The list goes on and on, 

This comparison makes no sense, we don’t treat individuals the same as institutions.  

5 minutes ago, kllindley said:

You said you are simply arguing for transparency as a principle that is good and right. I'm simply pointing out that there are limits to the benefits of transparency. If transparency is so wonderful, why not go all the way?

 Are you saying that if the Church published the info in the UK report for the US, that you'd be satisfied? Or is that just a starting point for you? Where do you propose we stop?

There are limits to just about everything, that goes without saying, and it’s not even relevant to point out.  

I haven’t reviewed the UK report enough to know how thorough it is, so I’m honestly not sure it represents the ideal or gold standard on financial transparency.  It would certainly be an improvement over what we have today(essentially nothing), but I imagine it’s not perfect and could be improved upon.  I don’t think any practices are immune from scrutiny and improvement.  

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I could offer opinion pieces that say it is a subsidy, but that’s a distraction from the point.  The benefit that churches receive from tax exempt status is significant preferential treatment and churches realize this and will fight to keep this benefit.  All tax payers in the USA have an interest in tax policies like this that provide significant financial benefits to large institutions.  

Institutions do not pay taxes. Individual people pay taxes.

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I have heard talks in which members claim that paying their tithing first resulted in "pennies from heaven," in some sense, but those people were not facing abject poverty and disease.  I personally know a BYU employee who decided (with his wife) to double their fast offering one month.  That was followed immediately by a raise at BYU.  So they doubled it yet again the following month, and, voila, another raise at BYU.  However, I have no insight into whether those events were a reward direct from God, or just happenstantial.  Was it faith, or a mere statistical hit?  And how would we know?

What I have a very hard time believing is the suggestion you are making that LDS people who have virtually nothing in a third world country are being told stridently that they should pay their tithing first.  Is that a fact, or mere speculation?  Is the LDS Church a fundamentally cruel and oppressive organization?  On par with, say, Scientology.

We know that conference talks have been given in recent years telling people to pay tithing first, and these talks are translated into languages and distributed to all countries where the church operates to my knowledge.   President Nelson just recently made statements overseas about paying tithing to rise out of poverty.  All the evidence is there about these statements.

What you haven’t done is substantiated your claim that the church has a different message for poor people in poor countries.  And as much as I hate to use the CFR rule, I’m going to issue one here.  Robert, please provide evidence to support your claim.  

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Institutions do not pay taxes. Individual people pay taxes.

This is factually wrong.  Institutions of all shapes and sizes pay taxes. Even the church pays some taxes, but they are tax exempt in ways that for profit corporations aren’t.  

Did you have something else in mind with your comment that I could have missed?  

[smac97]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Your comparison to me asking for your personal finances didn't work the first time you gave it and to be a completely irrelevant comparison. 

It works quite well.  I have no business publicly demanding that you divulge your personal financial information, nor faulting you for failing to do so.  I simply lack standing to make such a demand.

So it is with your demands of the LDS Church.

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm a stakeholder in the church's finances by personally donating money directly and indirectly as a tax payer since they receive subsidized tax exempt status.  

With respect, no, you're not a stakeholder in the Church's finances.  You donated the money.  It's no longer yours.  

And you status as a taxpayer doesn't work either.  I subsidize your tax deductions, but that doesn't give me the right to demand to see your financials.  I simply lack standing to make public demands to see your financial data, just like you lack standing to demand such things of the Church.

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Thats fine and I'm not tearing the church down or attempting to do so.  I think financial transparency would not only benefit the members and society but would benefit the church as well. 

Or not.  

It's a judgment call.  It's a discretionary decision.  And it's not yours to make, nor is it mine.

In any event, all evidence indicates that the Church is doing an excellent job in managing its finances.

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Your assumption that it would hurt more than help is speculation on your part.   

I really don't have such an assumption.  

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Sometimes publicly finding fault with poor practices actually is a good thing, and can help an institution to right their ship and get more healthy.  

This assumes that the Church's practices are "poor."  That's not a given.  To the contrary, the evidence indicates that the Church is an excellent steward of its finances (now, anyway).

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The evidence is clear to me, and I think I understand why you don't agree with it.  No matter, I'm not going to call you names or attempt to paint you in bad faith just because I disagree with your perspective.

Fair enough.  I apologize for calling you a meddlesome busybody.  I thought that was a fairly moderate critique of what you are doing, but I shouldn't have said it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

By your reasoning, every tax deduction is "a subsidy."  Every tax-advantaged transaction is a "subsidy."  Every tax credit is a "subsidy."  But the only time I hear about this sort of thing is when the LDS Church is in the crosshairs.

I'm guessing you don't spend much time in your professional or personal life talking about tax policy, do you?

Tax policy as to religious groups?  No, I don't.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

My views on what tax subsidizations are and why tax exempt organizations and churches ought to be transparent are mainstream positions and really aren't controversial (at least among people who aren't apologists for prosperity preachers).

You really don't need to die on this hill.

Nor do you.  Out of all the ways to find fault with the Church, you are going with this?

You are presenting your claims about "subsidies" in order to bolster your criticisms of the LDS Church about "transparency," and yet you refuse to explain why your reasoning doesn't apply to you.  Or me.  Or anyone except the LDS Church.

"Transparency for thee, but not for me," I suppose.  

-Smac

[kllindley]

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

This comparison makes no sense, we don’t treat individuals the same as institutions.  

There are limits to just about everything, that goes without saying, and it’s not even relevant to point out.  

I haven’t reviewed the UK report enough to know how thorough it is, so I’m honestly not sure it represents the ideal or gold standard on financial transparency.  It would certainly be an improvement over what we have today(essentially nothing), but I imagine it’s not perfect and could be improved upon.  I don’t think any practices are immune from scrutiny and improvement.  

It seems that dismissing a comparison by stating that it makes no sense is the adult equivalent of "nuh-uh" on the playground.  If it is not an appropriate analogy, explain why.  Simply stating that "we treat individuals and institutions differently" "goes without saying, and it’s not even relevant to point out."  It's a truism, not a reason.  

It fascinates me that you spend so much time here arguing for transparency, transparency, transparency!, but haven't even taken the time to see what reporting requirements exist the other requirements you cited as an ideal.  Thank you for finally being honest about your motives here.  Talk about inconsistency!

[kllindley]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

I'm guessing you don't spend much time in your professional or personal life talking about tax policy, do you?

My views on what tax subsidizations are and why tax exempt organizations and churches ought to be transparent are mainstream positions and really aren't controversial (at least among people who aren't apologists for prosperity preachers).

You really don't need to die on this hill.

 

I'm happy to admit that I don't spend much time talking about tax policy.  Does it mostly consist of doing a google search and just pasting all the links you can?  Or are you willing to identify some limiting principle to "transparency?"  Can you explain the reasoning informing your decision?  

 

[hope_for_things]

 

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

With respect, no, you're not a stakeholder in the Church's finances.  You donated the money.  It's no longer yours.  

And you status as a taxpayer doesn't work either.  I subsidize your tax deductions, but that doesn't give me the right to demand to see your financials.  I simply lack standing to make public demands to see your financial data, just like you lack standing to demand such things of the Church.

Just being a member of the church makes me a stakeholder whether I donate or not.

This strained comparison with personal tax payers is getting more bizarre and incoherent.  And I’m not making demands, I’m making arguments for a change in practice.  

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This assumes that the Church's practices are "poor."  That's not a given.  To the contrary, the evidence indicates that the Church is an excellent steward of its finances (now, anyway).

I actually don’t think you or I have enough information to make a judgement about the church’s stewardship over finances.  We need the data to be able to evaluate it. 

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Fair enough.  I apologize for calling you a meddlesome busybody.  I thought that was a fairly moderate critique of what you are doing, but I shouldn't have said it.

Thank you.  

[hope_for_things]

13 minutes ago, kllindley said:

It seems that dismissing a comparison by stating that it makes no sense is the adult equivalent of "nuh-uh" on the playground.  If it is not an appropriate analogy, explain why.  Simply stating that "we treat individuals and institutions differently" "goes without saying, and it’s not even relevant to point out."  It's a truism, not a reason.  

It fascinates me that you spend so much time here arguing for transparency, transparency, transparency!, but haven't even taken the time to see what reporting requirements exist the other requirements you cited as an ideal.  Thank you for finally being honest about your motives here.  Talk about inconsistency!

The comparison hasn’t included any relevant reasoning, and honestly I think it’s pretty obvious why institutions are treated differently than individuals when it comes to tax laws and requirements for public disclosure.  You can learn about these concepts in college finance 101 courses.

As for my review of UK tax law, I don’t see why I’d need to make a thorough review to evaluate whether their disclosures are the best out there.  I’m not in the legislature and I’m not going to be writing these rules.  

Not sure what you mean about me being honest with my motives or any inconsistency.  

[Calm]

Do charities pay taxes on their income?  I have always assumed not if they were nonprofit (though some employees might pay income tax on their salaries and should, imo).  Am I wrong?

I don't give money to charitable organizations for them to turn around and hand part of that donation to the government.  Rather just the government take it from me directly so as not to waste time and resources.  That just doesn't make sense.  A business where .I am paying someone to provide me with something and the exchange makes a profit for that business..that makes sense to get taxed, imo.

Edited May 31, 2018 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

This is factually wrong.  Institutions of all shapes and sizes pay taxes. Even the church pays some taxes, but they are tax exempt in ways that for profit corporations aren’t.  

Did you have something else in mind with your comment that I could havdse missed?  

Yes. If you charge my church a property tax, the Church has two choices: 1)pay the tax by cutting existing programs and employees, thus reducing the services and salaries it can offer, or 2) increase the fund raising appeals and monetary earning activities by increasing giving from the members to cover the new expense. If either of these steps fails, the Church will fail. Either way the members pay ....loss of either services or money or both. The church has no independent resources from which to draw, so the members are the ones that must pay. 

Edited May 31, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do charities pay taxes on their income?  I have always assumed not if they were nonprofit (though some employees might pay income tax on their salaries and should, imo).  Am I wrong?

I don't give money to charitable organizations for them to turn around and hand part of that donation it to the government.  Rather just the government take it from me directly so as not to waste time and resources.  That just doesn't make sense.  A business where .I am paying someone to provide me with something and the exchange makes a profit for that business..that makes sense to get taxed, imo.

In Washington, no, if they are truly non-profit. In Tacoma, we had to stop some fund raisers like bake sales and bazaars because the county assessor determined we were getting profits and he was threatening to remove our tax-exempt status. I don’t think the government should have that kind of control. 

Edited May 31, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

There is a difference between donating money to help with a mission that one values and wants to contribute to and paying someone to produce an item for your personal use.  I get the concern when nonprofits produce stuff that competes with the business world, such as bakeries...but most people buy that stuff in addition to, not in place of the usual goodies.  In fact, bakeries might make money off of bake sales given how many people cook these days.  

Edited May 31, 2018 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

We know that conference talks have been given in recent years telling people to pay tithing first, and these talks are translated into languages and distributed to all countries where the church operates to my knowledge.   President Nelson just recently made statements overseas about paying tithing to rise out of poverty.  All the evidence is there about these statements.

I am well familiar with all those talks to which you refer, and I pay a full tithe first.  However, I am not poverty-stricken, in which case I  might very well not pay any tithing at all.  At least not until I got back on my feet.  I don't know about you, but I live in the real world, and I think that your portrayal of the LDS Church projects officious cruelty and oppression.  I have stated this several times, and you have yet to respond with specific proof of your contention.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

What you haven’t done is substantiated your claim that the church has a different message for poor people in poor countries.  And as much as I hate to use the CFR rule, I’m going to issue one here.  Robert, please provide evidence to support your claim.  

I did not make that claim.  You did.  You claimed that the LDS Church is cruel and oppressive, and you have not yet supported that contention -- except with comments about generic Conference addresses we have all heard.  I have yet to meet these imaginary members who are being ground down by the LDS hierarchy with demands for money they don't have.  I have yet to find such a Mormon Church, and I have been around for 77 years.  Perhaps you could show me evidence of that horrible Mormon Church which you have concocted.

[Robert F. Smith]

12 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

In Washington, no, if they are truly non-profit. In Tacoma, we had to stop some fund raisers like bake sales and bazaars because the county assessor determined we were getting profits and he was threatening to remove our tax-exempt status. I don’t think the government should have that kind of control. 

When my ward runs an auction of donated items, the money bid and paid for those items is not tax-deductible.  Still, the purpose of the fund-raiser (say girl's camp) is fulfilled through those donations, and the non-profit need not pay taxes on those donations.  Or am I wrong?

[JulieM]

Can someone explain why the church (corporation) can’t purchase this stock on their own?  Why do they need to own these 13 companies who in turn purchase the stock for the Church?

I admit I’m very inexperienced in this whole area so these are probably easily answered.  But I’m just wondering.  Thanks to anyone in advance for any answers!!