The Church has $32 Billion in the Stock Market

[hope_for_things]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not really.  There are tens of millions of taxpayers who itemize their deductions.  Those deductions amount to savings - er, I mean "subsidies" - that are "significant and material."  How many hundreds of billions of dollars are not paid in taxes because if you and yours?  

Quote

I'm not aware of any people making this argument other than yourself on this thread.  

Yes, I am making this argument.  And you are not responding to it.

Honestly I'm surprised I had the patience to last this long in a back and forth with you.  Your last post put me over the edge.  From my point of view your argument is entirely illogical and absurd, but apparently it makes sense to you, which is a mystery I'm going to just have to leave unsolved.  I don't know why I get sucked into these discussions sometimes... 

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, Analytics said:

For your consideration, here is a paper that was published in the Cardozo Law Review that gives some history about public disclosure laws, the motivations behind them, and why, according to the author, churches should be held to the same legal transparency standards as other non-profits.

http://www.cardozolawreview.com/content/35-1/MONTAGUE.35.1.pdf

I'll give it a read.  Thanks!

Quote

Your question about why I think tax-exempt (i.e. tax-subsidized) churches in general ought to be transparent while not insisting that you, personally, be transparent for the same reasons is interesting. Part of it is my own quirky belief that individuals have more intrinsic rights than corporations.

Do individuals have more intrinsic rights than groups of like-minded individuals?  A corporation, after all, is just a legal fiction.

Quote

I would add to that the assertion that by definition, when an organization asks to be treated as a 401(c)(3) tax-exempt entity, it is requesting special treatment.

Well, yes and no.  For example, eleven states have constitutional guarantees of property tax exemptions for religious entities and activities.

Moreover, religious groups qua religious groups are entitled to constitutional protections against government intrusion/entanglement.  

Quote

In contrast, when you deduct the interest on your mortgage, you are not requesting special treatment--

Sure you are.  The tax code gives "special treatment" to those who pay mortgage interest.  Homeowners who finance their homes are given "special treatment" over renters and homeowners who pay cash.  

Quote

rather, you are claiming a benefit that is given to everybody who behaves in the way the tax law deliberately encourages you to behave.

Tax law also "deliberately encourages" all sorts of behavior, including donations to charitable organizations (like the LDS Church).

Quote

Transparency facilitates a form of free-market oversight that can reasonably be expected of corporations who request special treatment.

Except that the treatment isn't any more "special" than your tax deduction of the mortgage interest (or if it is more "special," it's a difference of degree).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 31, 2018 by smac97

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Again, this does not address my concern.  The I'm-a-taxpayer-therefore-I-am-"subsidizing"-a-charitable-organization-therefore-I-have-a-right-to-see-its-financials explanation doesn't work for me.  For instance, there is no limiting principle here.  I have said this again and again.  If the foregoing "subsidization" argument applies to charitable organizations, it also applies to any individual or group who uses the tax code to reduce their tax obligation.  That would be . . . pretty much every taxpayer ever.  And yet nobody is suggesting that I have a right to see your financials simply because I am, in some circuitous and abstract way, "subsidizing" you.

They are?  How so?  What's the difference?  Why does Subsidy X ("given to orgs that raise money through donations") trigger "transparency" obligations, but Subsidy Y ("given to individuals") does not?  What is the legal distinction here?  What is the equitable distinction here?

And where did this distinction come from?  Do you have any statute or administrative rule or court case to support it?  Did you just make it up?

What is the limiting principle here?  What do you mean by "transparency?"

Thanks,

-Smac

This happens too often, smac.  your questions get answered and you re-ask and re-ask until you're blue in the face, or so it seems.  I've already answered your questions.  IMO the difference is donations made.  I don't see the point of comparing individuals with institutions because individuals are inherently private, or have a right to be.  We don't donate to individuals, at least not much. 

My opinion is, institutions that get donations from many tax payers, like Churches, have an obligation to transparency (meaning opening their books and explaining their money movements).  If they refuse transparency, then they should not be allowed to be tax free and benefitting from the rest of us.  

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Exiled said:

You are forgetting the argument from fallacy as well that says that just because an argument might have fallacious elements, it doesn't mean the argument is necessarily a bad one. One must still engage the argument. So why should the church be treated differently as analytics posits?

An argument based on a logical fallacy is by definition a weak one, ergo not a good one. 

But in point of fact, his argument has been addressed repeatedly on this thread — perhaps not to your liking, but it has been addressed. 

Nonetheless, for your convenience I will repeat my sentiments, though I give notice I will not tolerate badgering (repetition of asked-and-answered questions) indefinitely. 

The Church of Jesus Christ is different than the groups cited by analytics not only in its mission but in the fact that by and large, those who arguably have standing to care how in detail the Church spends its money don’t see a need to worry, because they trust those charged with the disbursement of the funds, who have continually and collectively shown themselves trustworthy.

On the other hand, I have no trust in the motives of those, by and large, who do fuss over it. I believe their motive is to look for things they can distort or take out of context to shape into brickbats that can be used against the Church of Jesus Christ. Let them rail all they like, until they are hoarse, if it comes to that. It will have no persuasive effect on me. 

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

This happens too often, smac.  your questions get answered and you re-ask and re-ask until you're blue in the face, or so it seems. 

I'm trying to get down to brass tacks.  I understand that everyone has an opinion, but what I'm interested in is the reasoning and logic and information underlying such opinions.

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I've already answered your questions.  IMO the difference is donations made.  I don't see the point of comparing individuals with institutions because individuals are inherently private, or have a right to be. 

Religious groups are also "inherently private, or have a right to be."

The LDS Church does not owe its existence to the government.  It is a private entity.  That it is a private entity comprised of like-minded persons as opposed to a private entity comprised of a single person does not seem to be a significant difference.

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

We don't donate to individuals, at least not much. 

Well, the I-want-"transparency"-because-I-am-a-"stockholder"-because-I-have-paid-tithing argument is, in my view, qualitatively different from the I-want-"transparency"-because-I-am-a-"stockholder"-because-I-subsidize--the-LDS-Church-because-it-is-tax-exempt argument.

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

My opinion is, institutions that get donations from many tax payers, like Churches, have an obligation to transparency (meaning opening their books and explaining their money movements). 

Yes, I understand that is your opinion.  But I have been attempting to understand the legal/ethical reasoning behind it. But we seem to be winding things down, so let's just move on.

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If they refuse transparency, then they should not be allowed to be tax free and benefitting from the rest of us.  

What "transparency" means therefore becomes fairly important.  Transparency in what way?  To whom?  To what extent?

And, and the end of it all . . . for what purpose?  Is this all just idle curiosity?  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

53 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'll give it a read.  Thanks!

You bet.

53 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Do individuals have more intrinsic rights than groups of like-minded individuals?  A corporation, after all, is just a legal fiction.

In my opinion, the answer is absolutely. Individuals have intrinsic worth and natural rights. Groups of like-minded individuals do not.

[Marginal Gains]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

They are preparing to make covenants.  

-Smac

So, you’re confirming that drinking coffee is a sin for members as far as the Church is concerned. Thanks, that confirms my thinking too.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I just went back through my posts that you replied to and I have called the church cruel and oppressive.  My point about tithing is that the church's message to members everywhere is that you should pay tithing first.  It makes no exception for people in poverty, quite to the contrary the church still strongly encourages these people to pay their tithing first, sometimes even before worrying about paying bills and prioritizing food to eat for their family.  This is problematic from my perspective.  

You have implied that the church has a different policy for people in poverty, when you make these statements: 

The evidence that the church sends the message to pay tithing first, to pay tithing even when you don't have money to pay your bills is clear.  Now I actually did a little searching and found an even more strident article from the Ensign in 2005 that actually goes further than I had even imagined the church went with its rhetoric about paying tithing.  It actually sounds a lot like the language that you are accusing me of using.  Here are a couple quotes from the article:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2005/04/tithing-a-commandment-even-for-the-destitute?lang=eng

Now, I have more than supported my earlier assertion that the church's message to everyone around the world, including poverty stricken people is to pay tithing first.  However, your implications that the church has a different standard for people in certain circumstances is what I see no supporting evidence for, and that is what I'm calling a CFR on.  If you can't provide evidence to support this assertion, then please clarify or withdraw your earlier statements.  

The very quotes you provided from Pres Hinckley show that the destitute were receiving clothing and food from the Church at the very time that they were being asked to pay tithing, which accords with a kind and generous picture of LDS Church action, and exactly the opposite of the officious and cruel Church which you portray.  I know of no LDS policy that people who are starving and suffering malnutrition are being asked to pay tithing first.  That is cruel nonsense, and I just don't see it.  The Conference addresses with which we are all familiar are generic in nature and do not suggest that poverty-stricken people are being asked to pay tithing.  You are playing the old Pharisee game of straining out gnats and swallowing camels.  You have yet to give us a real world assessment, and instead make the LDS an offender for a word.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Do individuals have more intrinsic rights than groups of like-minded individuals?  A corporation, after all, is just a legal fiction.

In my opinion, the answer is absolutely. Individuals have intrinsic worth and natural rights. Groups of like-minded individuals do not.

Huh.  Could you elaborate on this?  I don't understand the reasoning for it.

I as an individual have the right to Free Speech, but a newspaper (a "group") does not?

I as an individual have the right to due process, but a religious group does not?

I as an individual have the right to hold property, but a religious group does not?

I as an individual have the right to own a gun.  Does that right go away if I join a group of other like-minded individuals who also own guns?

So groups do not have "natural rights," but they do have an obligation to pay taxes?  Why is that?  They get all the obligations of being part of our society, but none of the benefits ("rights")?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Just now, Marginal Gains said:

Quote

They are preparing to make covenants.  

-Smac

So, you’re confirming that drinking coffee is a sin for members as far as the Church is concerned. Thanks, that confirms my thinking too.

Yes, it's a sin for members of the Church.  Isn't this common knowledge?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Marginal Gains]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, it's a sin for members of the Church.  Isn't this common knowledge?

Thanks,

-Smac

It was to me, it was Bluebell disputing my claim that the Church viewed coffee drinking as a sin.

[rockpond]

For me, transparency is a logical prerequisite to practicing common consent.  It also makes good sense.

For President Ballard, it seems that transparency is also the Lord's way.  From the Nov 2017 Face to Face Event with Elder Oaks:  "Just trust us, wherever you are in the world, and you share this message with anyone else who raises the question about the Church not being transparent. We’re as transparent as we know how to be in telling the truth. We have to do that; that’s the Lord’s way."

For me "in telling the truth" includes the truth about how sacred funds are being utilized.

[ksfisher]

Just now, rockpond said:

For me "in telling the truth" includes the truth about how sacred funds are being utilized.

Do you believe the brethren are not being truthful about how these funds are being used?

[Marginal Gains]

10 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Do you believe the brethren are not being truthful about how these funds are being used?

Do you believe the brethren are telling us everything about how the funds are used?

“There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.”

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-31-honesty?lang=eng

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Do you believe the brethren are telling us everything about how the funds are used?

No, they are not.  That seems to be less a matter of belief and more of just a factual statement since they don't disclose church finances.

[poptart]

I'll show up to the nearest ward in white ready for baptism if I can have some of that.  I'll even marry a woman and have a bunch of kids.  I'll be the best TBM ever, regular Peter Priesthood.

[Marginal Gains]

$32,000,000,000 is $2,000 per currently claimed member.

Edited May 31, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Do you believe the brethren are telling us everything about how the funds are used?

“There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.”

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-31-honesty?lang=eng

I don't think honesty requires "telling us everything about how the funds are used."

The Church administers billions of dollars every year.  Church buildings, maintenance costs, employees, church schools, humanitarian efforts, missionary work, geneology, and so on.

I again recommend that interested parties read this blog article: The Folly of LDS Church Financial Transparency

A relevant excerpt:

Quote

What Good Would Transparency Do?

Let’s start first with the business side of the LDS Church. Why good would it do to have these financial statements? I can think of only one legitimate reason, and that’s to ensure that they really do keep tithing money separate. But if that’s all we’re after, a credible, independent, third party auditor stating that they’re separate would accomplish the same thing at a fraction of the price. Which I believe is exactly what the LDS Church does right now.

Yep.  But I suspect our crop of disgruntled folks would not be satisfied with that.  Because they aren't satisfied with that right now.

Quote

Wanting to know the rest of the numbers is like wanting to know the financial standing of a private company like Enterprise Rent-A-Car or Mars Chocolates: it might make an interesting slideshow on Forbes, but it really has no bearing on you personally.

Quite so.  But it would offer plenty of opportunity for faultfinding, second-guessing, armchair quarterbacking, and generalized hissy fits.

Quote

Moving on to the religious side of the Church, what good would be accomplished by publicly releasing financial statements? I suppose it could serve as an extra check to make sure the funds are properly treated, but with a multibillion dollar organization, the numbers will be truncated into nearly meaningless oblivion, just like they were in the Episcopal Church example above.

And for those pre-disposed to think the worst of the LDS Church (a nicer phrase than "prejudiced"), truncated disclosures would never be enough.  We'd just hear a chorus of "They're hiding something!  We need to dig deeper!  Give us more!"

Quote

Want to know how easy it would be to hide stolen or misapplied funds in truncated financials? Well, most auditors don’t even consider digging into a number unless it’s “material.” Materiality for a 7 billion dollar company would be AT LEAST $10 million dollars, if not more. So as long as you steal less than $10 million in a not totally obvious way, it won’t even hit the auditing radar.

If auditors can't catch such things, why would untrained neophytes?

Quote

So, what, then, would transparent financial statements be used for? I suspect the only use would be for people with 1/1000ths of the information as those making financial decisions to loudly proclaim that the LDS Church isn’t making the right decisions. Kind of like Monday Morning Quarterbacking after watching about 3 plays of the game.

Yep.  That's the conclusion I keep ending up at.

Quote

And if they weren’t truncated into nearly oblivion, what then? Even if you did watch the game, it doesn’t mean you could have done better. If you really think you can, there’s a way to do that without loudly shouting criticisms over the internet.

Yep.  Second-guessing decisions would be the order of the day.  Easiest thing in the world.

Quote

Keep in mind that we’re not shareholders. We’re not getting a financial return on our investments. Our donating of tithing is based on our faith in the Lord, not because we expect a 5% dividend.

Heck, we’re not even taxpayers here. We’re not trying to get representation. We’re supposed to give frankly, expecting nothing in return.

Yep.

-Smac

[Analytics]

51 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Huh.  Could you elaborate on this?  I don't understand the reasoning for it.

For reference, this was the question:

"Do individuals have more intrinsic rights than groups of like-minded individuals?" [emphasis changed]

My answer was yes, individuals have more intrinsic rights than groups. That doesn't mean that groups have no rights at all.

Individuals have a conscience. Members of a group do too, but the group itself doesn't. Individuals in all regards are intrinsic, fully vested parts of society for as long as they are alive. Groups are created for specific, narrow purposes and are created and disbanded with ease. Persons and groups are not the same thing.

The specific relationship between the group itself and the members of the group depends upon whether the group is a c-corporation, an s-corporation, a partnership, a corporate-sole, a club, a church, an unorganized gathering, or a family. They join and create these groups for different reasons (e.g. being able to make money without having to be personally liable for what the group does).

If a group exists for the sole purpose of earning money for shareholders, the members of the group don't have a natural right to have their personal liability for the group's actions limited to what they put into it. Society might decide to grant them that right, but they don't naturally have it. The rights and responsibilities that groups have with society are different than the rights and responsibilities of individuals. It is a different social contract.

So let me ask you this? If a group exists for the sole purpose of making money for its shareholders while simultaneously shielding them from liability, why should that soulless, money-making, expendable entity have the same rights as a flesh-and-blood natural person? If society can't throw a corporation in jail for murdering somebody, how could the corporation itself have a right to keep and bear arms?

I'm fine with corporations existing as entities. I think the laws should allow them to enter into contracts, have due process, raise money, limit the liability of its shareholders, and such.

However, natural rights are only naturally enjoyed by natural persons. If an entity doesn't have a literal conscience, it doesn't have the right of freedom of speech. Rights that are granted to people shouldn't automatically accrue to the soulless groups they may belong to.

Edited May 31, 2018 by Analytics

[JLHPROF]

45 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

So, you’re confirming that drinking coffee is a sin for members as far as the Church is concerned. Thanks, that confirms my thinking too.

 

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, it's a sin for members of the Church.  Isn't this common knowledge? 

 

This goes back to a discussion I had on the now closed polygamy thread.  Is there anything inherently sinful about drinking coffee, or is it only the disobedience to God's command that is a sin?
I would argue that drinking coffee is neither right nor wrong.  And given that lack of moral issue, obedience to God should be the default choice.

Some sins are naturally evil in nature.  Others are only evil because God has prohibited them at a given time or for a given people.

[Jeanne]

23 hours ago, bluebell said:

Then let the people who funded the organization deal with it.  Those who haven't funded anything can mind their own business.  

I needed to come back to this.  For over 40 years I paid tithing..in my inactive days not so much as I should..but over the years I have paid thousands of dollars..what makes any one think that my dollars are not contributed still in the making of investments/malls and such.  They got mine.  I would like a refund..

[ksfisher]

20 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Do you believe the brethren are telling us everything about how the funds are used?

No, I don't believe that they are telling us everything.  I don't believe they have an obligation to tell us everything.  Do you believe that by not telling us everything they are lying?

 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Analytics said:

So let me ask you this? If a group exists for the sole purpose of making money for its shareholders while simultaneously shielding them from liability, why should that soulless, money-making, expendable entity have the same rights as a flesh-and-blood natural person?

Because a "soulless, money-making, expendable entity" should not be punished simply because it is composed of two or more people instead of just one.  Individuals can be soulless money-grubbers too.

2 minutes ago, Analytics said:

If society can't throw a corporation in jail for murdering somebody, how could the corporation itself have a right to keep and bear arms?

Society can fine a corporation for murdering somebody, and jail the flesh-and-blood participants.

I am still not getting this.  In your view, does a newspaper as a "corporation" have First Amendment rights?  Free Press?  Free Speech?

2 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I'm fine with corporations existing as entities. I think the laws should allow them to enter into contracts, have due process, raise money, limit the liability of its shareholders, and such.

So you grant them some rights, but not others?  How do you differentiate?  How do you decide which rights a group gets and which it does not?

2 minutes ago, Analytics said:

However, natural rights are only naturally enjoyed by natural persons.

Unless they choose to exercise those natural rights as a group, in which case . . . what?

2 minutes ago, Analytics said:

If an entity doesn't have a literal conscience, it doesn't have the right of freedom of speech.

CFR, please.  I would really like to understand where you are getting these ideas.  Are you just making them up as we go along, or are there some governing principles here?  If so, where did these principles come from?

2 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Rights that are granted to people shouldn't automatically accrue to the soulless groups they may belong to.

So the government is supposed to grant or withhold rights based on whether the recipient has a "soul?"

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

56 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The very quotes you provided from Pres Hinckley show that the destitute were receiving clothing and food from the Church at the very time that they were being asked to pay tithing, which accords with a kind and generous picture of LDS Church action, and exactly the opposite of the officious and cruel Church which you portray.  I know of no LDS policy that people who are starving and suffering malnutrition are being asked to pay tithing first.  That is cruel nonsense, and I just don't see it.  The Conference addresses with which we are all familiar are generic in nature and do not suggest that poverty-stricken people are being asked to pay tithing.  You are playing the old Pharisee game of straining out gnats and swallowing camels.  You have yet to give us a real world assessment, and instead make the LDS an offender for a word.

This is a disappointing response on two fronts.  1. Because you continue to mischaracterize my statements (I haven't called the Church cruel or oppressive, yet you continue to accuse me of that.)  2.  You are dodging my CFR, because you are refusing to provide supporting evidence that the church has a different message to poverty stricken members.  In addition, your point about the Church helping those people in the Ensign article with clothing and food, still doesn't change their message about tithing to those same members.  So my point still stands unchallenged by actual evidence of a different message from the church about tithing.    What happens when the temporary assistance of food and clothing is gone?  Members in poverty are still told to pay their tithing first. 

[rockpond]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think honesty requires "telling us everything about how the funds are used."

The Church administers billions of dollars every year.  Church buildings, maintenance costs, employees, church schools, humanitarian efforts, missionary work, geneology, and so on.

I again recommend that interested parties read this blog article: The Folly of LDS Church Financial Transparency

A relevant excerpt:

Yep.  But I suspect our crop of disgruntled folks would not be satisfied with that.  Because they aren't satisfied with that right now.

Quite so.  But it would offer plenty of opportunity for faultfinding, second-guessing, armchair quarterbacking, and generalized hissy fits.

And for those pre-disposed to think the worst of the LDS Church (a nicer phrase than "prejudiced"), truncated disclosures would never be enough.  We'd just hear a chorus of "They're hiding something!  We need to dig deeper!  Give us more!"

If auditors can't catch such things, why would untrained neophytes?

Yep.  That's the conclusion I keep ending up at.

Yep.  Second-guessing decisions would be the order of the day.  Easiest thing in the world.

Yep.

-Smac

Nice platitudes but they don't hold up to even a little bit of scrutiny:  I used to work for a corporation with a market cap of roughly $250 billion.  Even though they have auditors, they still published an annual report that was short enough to be given in booklet form to every employee (even though digital would have sufficed).  The numbers in this annual report were certainly not "truncated into nearly meaningless oblivion".  The leaders of the company still managed to do just fine even with people Monday Morning Quarterbacking the report.  In the church today, it is clear that our leaders have no problem not making public comment on church-related issues that are swirling around in the media.  But I agree with his points that we are neither investors looking for a return or taxpayers seeking representation.  Neither of those, in my opinion, are valid reasons to seek financial transparency in the church.