The Church has $32 Billion in the Stock Market

[LoudmouthMormon]

21 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). 

Oh wow - you're using one of my favorite in-your-face arguing tactics.  That's what - twelve different links to twelve different apparently reputable sources, all of them agreeing with you and apparently disagreeing with Smac?  Pure rhetorical witty snarky gold.  My hat's off to you sir.  How could anyone hope to stand against such an insurmountable mountain of documented widespread opinion?

That said, you're still wrong about what a subsidy is, and what it is not.  You forgot plain old dictionary.com (feel free to use any other dictionary, financial or otherwise):

Quote

[suhb-si-dee]  noun, plural sub·si·dies.

1. A direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like.

2. A sum paid, often in accordance with a treaty, by one government to another to secure some service in return.
a grant or contribution of money.

3. Money formerly granted by the English Parliament to the crown for special needs.

So, "pecuniary aid", "sum paid", "money granted".  A subsidy, is a grant of money, especially governmental, to aid private undertakings.

Ya know how you grant money or pay a sum?  You have some money sitting there in a handy sum pile, and you pick it up and hand it to someone.    At the start of the day, you had a hundred bucks in the bank.  At the end of the day, you have a hundred minus whatever the amount you gave away as a subsidy.

Do you know what a subsidy is NOT?  Telling someone "I was going to take ten bucks from you, but now I'm only going to take five.  So you're five bucks richer, consider yourself subsidized."  See, that's a lie masquerading as truth.  That's not a subsidy, that's a tax break.  You started with ten bucks in the bank, after your statement about how you'll take less than you originally planned, you still got ten bucks in the bank.  You didn't grant any money.  You didn't pay any sum.  You didn't subsidize anything, you offered a tax break. 

See, certain people with political agendas have been weaponizing the word "subsidy" to use against their opponents.  Similarly to words like "homophobe" or "bigot".  Doesn't matter what the word means, but nobody wants to be one, so find your enemy and call him one.   Same with Subsidy.  We all know government shouldn't give churches money.  So if you have an axe to grind against churches, look at their tax-exempt status and call it a subsidy.  It sounds so good, even otherwise smart people on message boards with names like "analytics" will fall for it every time.   This isn't even a left vs. right thing.  Both sides do it.   Lefties use the language when griping about right-wing religious nuts.   Right wingers do it when pandering to businessleaders for votes. 

Yeah, I was a certified and paid tax preparer until I let my certification lapse last year.  Doesn't really make me an expert, but it's better than nothing.  I gave up long ago trying to explain the difference between subsidy and tax break to clients - they came in with their notions, and it wasn't my job to correct them, just do their taxes.   

 

Edited May 31, 2018 by LoudmouthMormon

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

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.

What limiting principle do you apply to transparency? 

No one else here has been willing to answer this question. Which seriously undercuts any claim that they really care about transparency. I know from past interaction that you seem sincere in your concerns, so I want to ask you directly. 

[rockpond]

Just now, kllindley said:

What limiting principle do you apply to transparency? 

No one else here has been willing to answer this question. Which seriously undercuts any claim that they really care about transparency. I know from past interaction that you seem sincere in your concerns, so I want to ask you directly. 

I'm not sure what you mean by that question.  Are you asking where I believe the limits should be for transparency?

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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). 

Still truncated, though.  

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The numbers in this annual report were certainly not "truncated into nearly meaningless oblivion". 

I suspect they were (in the sense that the blog author was intending).  A "booklet" is not going to be able to go into any sort of detail about the disposition of billions of dollars.

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The leaders of the company still managed to do just fine even with people Monday Morning Quarterbacking the report. 

Yes, being the boss has that advantage.

I have a hard time imagining employees being so presumptuous as to publicly castigate their employer and its management.  They could fire you, you see.  But for some reason some members of the Church feel quite a liberty to publicly speak against the leaders of the Church in ways they'd never do to their employer.  Part of that can be chalked up to online anonymity, and part to simple contempt and disrespect.

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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. 

There is a Public Affairs Department for a reason.

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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.

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

[kllindley]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm not sure what you mean by that question.  Are you asking where I believe the limits should be for transparency?

Yes. People keep saying that transparency is important when it comes to Church finances. My question is what does that actually mean.

21 hours ago, kllindley said:

What level of transparency would satisfy you? Stake finances? So Stake Presidents can be personally attacked? Or would you prefer to add Bishops into the crosshairs by requiring Ward level public accountability?

Maybe we should even include the names and amount given to each person who benefits from Church assistance. Is there a line for you? If so, are you actually arguing in favor of the principle of transparency, or just your particular application of the principle?

 

[bluebell]

37 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

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..

But life doesn't work like that.  And when you donated the money you knew that life didn't work like that. 

I gave some money to a charity a few times that I no longer associate with.  They didn't do anything illegal but I just didn't think they were a good way for me to spend my money anymore.  If i went on line years later and started telling people that i wanted a refund, people would think i was crazy.

The fact is (and I'm not trying to be snarky or judgmental or mean in any way) you don't pay tithing anymore and (if I understand you correctly) haven't for some time.  It might have been your business once, but you severed that relationship and the privileges (such as speaking on behalf of tithing payers) that came with it.

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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.

If you want to understand my argument, think about whether the "soulless, money-making expendable entity" consists of two people in their entirety. Do the individuals have ideas that aren't part of the group? Goals and dreams and values that aren't represented in the group? Relationships that aren't part of the group? Money that isn't part of the group? You seem to think that a group of two people is two whole people. I think a group of two people is a lot less than two whole people.

 

Quote

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

No. No. No.

 

Quote

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?

How do you create any law?

 

Quote

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

Two individuals choosing to say something as individuals is different than two individuals hiding behind the voice of a corporation.

 

Quote

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?

See "Personalizing the Impersonal: Corporations and the Bill of Rights" by Carl J. Mayer in Hastings Law Journal, Volume 41, Issue 3. 

https://repository.uchastings.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3002&context=hastings_law_journal

Also, see the following:

https://www.uuworld.org/articles/how-corporations-became-persons

https://www.movetoamend.org/

https://movetoamend.org/sites/default/files/CorpPersonhoodExplanationTimeline.pdf

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/

eta: And for good measure, here is a quote from John Paul Stevens in his dissenting opinion of Citizens United.

The basic premise underlying the Court’s ruling is its iteration, and constant reiteration, of the proposition that the First Amendment bars regulatory distinctions based on a speaker’s identity, including its “identity” as a corporation. While that glittering generality has rhetorical appeal, it is not a correct statement of the law. Nor does it tell us when a corporation may engage in electioneering that some of its shareholders oppose. It does not even resolve the specific question whether Citizens United may be required to finance some of its messages with the money in its PAC. The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court’s disposition of this case.

   In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races....

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/310/cdinpart.html

 

Edited May 31, 2018 by Analytics

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Still truncated, though.  

I suspect they were (in the sense that the blog author was intending).  A "booklet" is not going to be able to go into any sort of detail about the disposition of billions of dollars.

Yes, being the boss has that advantage.

I have a hard time imagining employees being so presumptuous as to publicly castigate their employer and its management.  They could fire you, you see.  But for some reason some members of the Church feel quite a liberty to publicly speak against the leaders of the Church in ways they'd never do to their employer.  Part of that can be chalked up to online anonymity, and part to simple contempt and disrespect.

There is a Public Affairs Department for a reason.

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

Actually, a booklet is able to go into quite a bit of detail about the disposition of billions of dollars.  The numbers are meaningful.  Plenty of corporations do this every year, year after year... to suggest that the church could not produce meaningful numbers is laughable.

Fear of castigation from disgruntled members is also not a good basis for making decisions.  Do you disagree?

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Yes. People keep saying that transparency is important when it comes to Church finances. My question is what does that actually mean.

 

It means that we return to the pattern that we followed up through 1959 in which church financial statements were published to membership each year.

As for limitations:  I wouldn't expect it to reveal personal information about tithe payers or those who are on salary with the Church.  I would expect it to follow the pattern of most annual financial reports provided by similarly sized corporations.

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Actually, a booklet is able to go into quite a bit of detail about the disposition of billions of dollars.  The numbers are meaningful.  Plenty of corporations do this every year, year after year... to suggest that the church could not produce meaningful numbers is laughable.

I don't underestimate the capacity of the critics and opponents of the LDS Church to find fault.

21 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Fear of castigation from disgruntled members is also not a good basis for making decisions.  Do you disagree?

Reasonable and good-faith concerns can and should be aired.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, poptart said:

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.

If you have material needs that are not being met, you could always try contacting the executive secretary to the bishop of the geographic area in which you reside and explaining to him that you would like an audience with the bishop for the purpose of securing temporal (living) assistance.

[poptart]

1 minute ago, Kenngo1969 said:

If you have material needs that are not being met, you could always try contacting the executive secretary to the bishop of the geographic area in which you reside and explaining to him that you would like an audience with the bishop for the purpose of securing temporal (living) assistance.

Why would they bother with an LGBT outsider?

[Teancum]

On 5/30/2018 at 9:05 AM, FearlessFixxer said:

https://mormonleaks.io/newsroom/2018/05/30/mormonleaks-compiles-information-connecting-mormon-church-to-32-billion-of-investments/

Before everyone jumps my bones and tries to tell me I am trying to make the church look bad....

This is about transparency.

This can be seen from a faithful perspective, a negative perspective, and a neutral perspective.

Personally, It matters not to me how much the church has in the stock market, but I think their tithe payers have a right to know.

 

Cheers
 

I would like transparency.  But I have no issue with a large world wide church having holdings that will protect it in order to perform what is believes its mission is.

But yes things like this should be disclosed and not kept secret especially for those who give substantial sums of $$ to the church.

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

The comment in relation to Africa was when President Nelson told the African people that the way to escape poverty was to pay tithing. That sounded odd at the time and coming from someone we now know is sat on $32 billion of stock options paid for by people trying to get out of poverty by paying ten percent of their income to the Church, it seems even odder.

I recall the Savior’s praise for the widow’s mite. Along with the admonition to pay tithing is the advice “try me and see.”

”prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.”

I know many people (as a missionary in Central America I taught many people in abject poverty, and as a bishop), and myself included, who have tried the Lord on this and have seen the results. 

Edited May 31, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[bluebell]

7 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

It’s clearly a net taker globally. $32 billion in stock and 2% of the State Of Florida should clear that up once and for all.

The comment in relation to Africa was when President Nelson told the African people that the way to escape poverty was to pay tithing. That sounded odd at the time and coming from someone we now know is sat on $32 billion of stock options paid for by people trying to get out of poverty by paying ten percent of their income to the Church, it seems even odder.

Coming from someone who seems to sincerely believe that tithing is a way for the Lord to bless His people (to the point that there won't be room enough to receive all the blessings), teaching someone in poverty to pay tithing isn't odd at all.  It's only odd from a faithless (not using that as an insult) secular point of view.

If the church used all the money they had right now and just gave it to the poor, the poor would still be with us (as the Savior taught) and the church would no longer be able to help.

[Robert F. Smith]

16 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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.

I called you to account first for making false accusations of a cruel and oppressive LDS Chuirch which would take poverty-stricken members and demand that they pay tithing first.  I know of no such case.  Your reference to generic Conference addresses is a smokescreen for your hatred and vilification of Mormons.  Have you ever tried being fair and even-handed, and basing your judgments on actual performance rather than imaginary horribles?  Still straining out gnats and swallowing camels, and making Mormons offenders for a word.

Quote

  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. 

There are always going to be "what ifs," of various kinds, and those who hate the LDS Church will always seek to find fault no matter what.  However, the LDS Church has always been a very pragmatic organization, not given to the rigid and cruel behavior which you want to be true.  I haven't seen it, and neither have you.  If the LDS Church functioned like the Church of Scientology, there might be some justification for your hate-filled spiel.  Since that is not the case, I fail to understand why you base your claims on imaginary wrongs.  You have yet to show us actual instances of the cruelties you claim.

Edited June 1, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Coming from someone who seems to sincerely believe that tithing is a way for the Lord to bless His people (to the point that there won't be room enough to receive all the blessings), teaching someone in poverty to pay tithing isn't odd at all.  It's only odd from a faithless (not using that as an insult) secular point of view.

If the church used all the money they had right now and just gave it to the poor, the poor would still be with us (as the Savior taught) and the church would no longer be able to help.

I think we should be careful in how far we extrapolate that particular phrase.

After having been anointed, with an expensive ointment, in preparation for his impending death, we read the following in Mark 14:7 "For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always."

Perhaps now is the "whensoever" of which Christ spoke.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think we should be careful in how far we extrapolate that particular phrase.

After having been anointed, with an expensive ointment, in preparation for his impending death, we read the following in Mark 14:7 "For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always."

Perhaps now is the "whensoever" of which Christ spoke.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.

I read that statement as Christ saying that we must always serve the poor and care for them, but that doesn't mean that there are not other legitimate and worthy uses for money other than spending it on the poor.  How do you interpret it?

[Analytics]

3 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Oh wow - you're using one of my favorite in-your-face arguing tactics.  That's what - twelve different links to twelve different apparently reputable sources, all of them agreeing with you and apparently disagreeing with Smac?  Pure rhetorical witty snarky gold.  My hat's off to you sir.  How could anyone hope to stand against such an insurmountable mountain of documented widespread opinion?

It's important to keep that post in context. I had been putting in a good-faith effort to engage in the conversation and explain my own ideas in my own words. I had repeatedly made the point about how the real-world financial outcomes of tax breaks are equivalent to direct cash subsidies, and that transparency is a well-defined and widely held value.

My interlocutor responded by accusing me of making this all up as an ad hoc attack upon a specific church, and claiming that none of this is ever talked about except when somebody is attacking that particular church.

If Smac disagrees with the values of the National Council of Nonprofits, that is fine. We can talk about that. But if he is going to accuse me of making up ad hoc rationalizations to attack a specific church when that is the exact opposite of what I was doing, then you can't fault me for emphasizing that I didn't make this stuff up, and that I am doing anything but singling out a particular church.

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

President Nelson told the African people that the way to escape poverty was to pay tithing.

And those of us who have experienced this for ourselves are not going to stop teaching this principle.

At the same time, I'm comfortable with the possibility that those who lack this personal experience will interpret this teaching differently.

Edited June 1, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I called you to account first for making false accusations of a cruel and oppressive LDS Chuirch which would take poverty-stricken members and demand that they pay tithing first. 

This is getting very frustrating when you repeatedly make false claims about what I said.  

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Your reference to generic Conference addresses is a smokescreen for your hatred and vilification of Mormons.  

I provided a link and quotes from one conference address, I made reference to others that you already admitted you were aware of.  This is no smokescreen.  

And when you accuse me of hatred and vilification of Mormons that kind of accusation is not only completely false, but it’s personal and it stings.  You’re violating board rules again here and honestly being a jerk too.  

[mfbukowski]

The Church has $32 Billion in the Stock Market

Sounds good to me.

Wise investing in a worldwide organization requires a large percentage of funds in stocks, wisely allocated of course, on the conservative side or more liberally in growth funds for a better return balancing the overall portfolio is precisely the best way to grow and save for the future

I certainly cannot fault them for investing as most people do in their retirement accounts.  Unfortunately most people do not have the talent and expertise the church has at his disposal.

Thar's a reason all them smart computer guys with them dot com outfits are movin to Utah, it's some of them bright BYU boys and even a few from U of U though I hates to admits it.

A course out here on the farm sem other folks hereabouts are inorant enough not to unnerstan thet and go after the church fer bein smart and make a big deal out of it cause theyre too poor to have stocks of their own r know how to work em.

Sech is life.

 

Edited June 1, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

11 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

And those of us who have experienced this for ourselves are not going to stop teaching this principle.

At the same time, I'm comfortable with the possibility that those who lack this personal experience will interpret this teaching differently.

Worked for me!!

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The Church has $32 Billion in the Stock Market

Sounds good to me.

Not to me. I'm sorely disappointed. As someone already pointed out, this amounts to about $2,000 per member (possibly $6,000 per currently active member?). I would expect Church leaders to have carefully invested far more of my lifetime tithing than that. I sincerely hope this estimate is far lower than reality.

[mfbukowski]

30 minutes ago, Analytics said:

It's important to keep that post in context. I had been putting in a good-faith effort to engage in the conversation and explain my own ideas in my own words. I had repeatedly made the point about how the real-world financial outcomes of tax breaks are equivalent to direct cash subsidies, and that transparency is a well-defined and widely held value.

Yep.  It's called being smart.  It's not like the government wastes money giving it away or anything.  You saying they should tax charitable organizations?  How could the movie stars get free publicity like Bill Gates?  After all he is a PHIL-AN-Throwitaway-PIST just for the tax breaks like everybody else.

Know anything about taxation on charitable giving and how it benefits everyone?

Some of us actually like that.  Beats stupidity.