The Church has $32 Billion in the Stock Market

[mfbukowski]

11 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

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.

Well they have tons of real estate too.   I mean that "lot" the LA temple sits on has to be worth a few BILLION if built out on its own.  Do you know how big that thing is?  And the price of real estate in Westwood CA?

Go to zillow dot com and type in Los Angeles-  Westwood CA and look at the price of some houses.....  How about a 10 million dollar CONDO? (1 apartment)

Then go to google and look at the size of that lot.....

And that is ONE property.... 

I prefer having my tithing in real estate myself 

That money will be doing the Lord's work for centuries after the world falls apart as is in process....

 

Edited June 1, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Analytics]

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

Deep.

[Hamba Tuhan]

17 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I prefer having my tithing in real estate myself 

Unless it's being sold off or leased out, property for things like temples and churches just consumes resources. Thankfully, it appears the Church also invests in other kinds of property that actually generate revenue. I'm just old enough to remember having to come up with contributions in addition to tithing just to keep the lights on and the water flowing in our chapels. I'm so grateful that faithful members + wise stewardship led to the end of that. I also remember the sacrifice it took to support my older brothers on overlapping missions in Japan and Europe when missions weren't heavily subsidised (or payments equalised). I'm likewise glad that the Church's tithe-payers and prophets have overseen the end of that burden as well.

As a self-supported missionary, I not only paid my own rent and bills, paid monthly fees to have access to a car and then paid to put petrol in that car, etc., but I also bought every single Book of Mormon or pamphlet I ever gave away. God bless the faithful Church members and inspired prophets who together have created the situation where our current missionaries face none of these privations or limitations!

'The truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the Great Jehovah shall say the work is done' (emphasis added). I am confident that God is the one who has been dismantling these financial obstacles one-by-one ... and that we will live to see Him continue to do so.

Edited June 1, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Deep.

Heavy.

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

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.

I don't think you need to be disappointed.  From what we know about the church's real estate and business holdings, the $32B in stocks would only be a portion of the Church's portfolio.

I remain unconvinced that this $32B in stocks actually belongs to the Church in its entirety.  To me, the list of names leads me to believe that they are more likely the entities held and managed by Deseret Trust Company (just a theory).  This would mean that only a portion of the income and only a portion of the principal belongs to the Church.

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

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?

I agree that He is telling us to always care for the poor and the needy.  And, as he demonstrated with his short ministry on earth, tending to the sick and afflicted ought to also be a priority.

But, in terms of other legitimate and worthy uses for money, the verse (and that particular event in His life) doesn't actually speak to that.  The expensive ointment was being used to prepare the Savior of the world for his coming death.  I find it inappropriate to extrapolate his reply to justify, for example, a $32B rainy day fund for the church.  I'm not clear if that was your point but I have observed members using that statement, that the poor are always with us, as justification for using funds on other ventures.

Now, to be clear, I am not saying that there aren't very valid reasons for a church this size to have a $32B invested savings account.  I just don't think that particular scripture gives us the valid reasons.

[Marginal Gains]

I don’t know if this point has already been made, but it is now clear that the recent Church statement on finances didn’t come out of the blue. The only reason for the further explanation of how the Church uses tithing (prior to it the Church, when explaining how tithing was used had failed to mention stocks, bonds, business ventures, commercial and residential investments) was because Mormon Leaks had tumbled it and was going to publish something. It was simply an attempt to get ahead of Mormon Leaks. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

32 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't think you need to be disappointed.  From what we know about the church's real estate and business holdings, the $32B in stocks would only be a portion of the Church's portfolio.

I hope you're right!

Quote

I remain unconvinced that this $32B in stocks actually belongs to the Church in its entirety.  To me, the list of names leads me to believe that they are more likely the entities held and managed by Deseret Trust Company (just a theory).  This would mean that only a portion of the income and only a portion of the principal belongs to the Church.

I likewise suspect this is the case.

[rockpond]

42 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

I don’t know if this point has already been made, but it is now clear that the recent Church statement on finances didn’t come out of the blue. The only reason for the further explanation of how the Church uses tithing (prior to it the Church, when explaining how tithing was used had failed to mention stocks, bonds, business ventures, commercial and residential investments) was because Mormon Leaks had tumbled it and was going to publish something. It was simply an attempt to get ahead of Mormon Leaks. 

Interesting observation.  So you think someone in Church headquarters knew that the leak was imminent?

[provoman]

9 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

I don’t know if this point has already been made, but it is now clear that the recent Church statement on finances didn’t come out of the blue. The only reason for the further explanation of how the Church uses tithing (prior to it the Church, when explaining how tithing was used had failed to mention stocks, bonds, business ventures, commercial and residential investments) was because Mormon Leaks had tumbled it and was going to publish something. It was simply an attempt to get ahead of Mormon Leaks. 

 

8 hours ago, rockpond said:

Interesting observation.  So you think someone in Church headquarters knew that the leak was imminent?

From the mormonleaks press release

Quote

 

On May 22, 2018 the Mormon Church issued a press release through the Mormon Newsroom titled ‘’Church Finances and a Growing Global Faith’’ in which they state a portion of the Church’s reserve funds are held in the stock market.

MormonLeaks™ has uncovered 13 LLCs that appear to have ties to the Mormon Church

 

 

Whoever at mormonleaks searched the SEC database for a specific form; only because they read the finance article released by the Church.

 This information was not an inside job leaked to mormonleaks. But since fearlessfixxer isnt just a driveby link dropper he is welcome to dispute.

Edited June 1, 2018 by provoman

[Marginal Gains]

3 minutes ago, provoman said:

 

Did either of you read the mormonleaks press release?

 

Whoever at mormonleaks searched the SEC database for a specific form; only because they read the finance article released by the Church.

 This information was not an inside job leaked to mormonleaks. But since fearlessfixxer isnt just a driveby link dropper he is welcome to dispute.

Having reread it after your post I think you have the timeline correct and I have it the wrong way round.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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

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.  

O.K.,if I am such a jerk, perhaps you could clarify why it is that you have repeatedly argued that a cruel and officious LDS Church demands that poverty-stricken members pay tithing first, when in fact we both know of no such actual case.  You have deliberately drawn the false conclusion from generic Conference addresses that the LDS Church is rigid and non-pragmatic in application of those pay-tithing-first standards.  You have no reason to believe that is an actual policy of the Church, yet you insist that it must be.  If you had an inkling of knowledge about the Mormon Church, you'd know how absurd that claim is.  And then you have the temerity to ask me for a CFR.  You are the one making unsupported allegations.  Where is your evidence?

I can understand that you are frustrated -- just like any flimflam artist whose tricks are so obvious.  Try some sincere, rational argument instead.  That might be the basis for a real discussion.

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, provoman said:

 

Did either of you read the mormonleaks press release?

 

Whoever at mormonleaks searched the SEC database for a specific form; only because they read the finance article released by the Church.

 This information was not an inside job leaked to mormonleaks. But since fearlessfixxer isnt just a driveby link dropper he is welcome to dispute.

Makes sense.  I had read that part earlier this week but forgot the sequence of events.  Thanks.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

I agree that He is telling us to always care for the poor and the needy.  And, as he demonstrated with his short ministry on earth, tending to the sick and afflicted ought to also be a priority.

But, in terms of other legitimate and worthy uses for money, the verse (and that particular event in His life) doesn't actually speak to that.  The expensive ointment was being used to prepare the Savior of the world for his coming death.  I find it inappropriate to extrapolate his reply to justify, for example, a $32B rainy day fund for the church.  I'm not clear if that was your point but I have observed members using that statement, that the poor are always with us, as justification for using funds on other ventures.

Now, to be clear, I am not saying that there aren't very valid reasons for a church this size to have a $32B invested savings account.  I just don't think that particular scripture gives us the valid reasons.

Exactly how long is "always" for taking care of the needy?

Does giving it all away now while it is available ensure "always" while governments break down along with civilization? How many fast offerings will the church get if the whole world is starving ?

I don't know about you but I actually believe in this kind of stuff and I am glad the church will have a stash while I or my great grandchildren will not.

Exactly how many years will it have to last?

Edited June 1, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Hamba Tuhan]

57 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Exactly how long is "always" for taking care of the needy?

Does giving it all away now while it is available ensure "always" ... ?

I've always thought the most important words in the referenced passage occur a few verses earlier, immediately following Judas's questioning of the Lord's wisdom/priorities: 'Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but ... '

No doubt some of the posters in this thread would prove exceptions, but I can't help but conclude that most of the Sturm und Drang surrounding this issue every single time it comes up necessarily falls into the category of 'This they say, not that they care for the poor, but _____ '.

Edited June 1, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Stargazer]

On 5/30/2018 at 11:00 PM, Analytics said:

The Church can do whatever it wants. I don't really care. You asked me what I think it should do with its money, as if my opinion on it mattered. I was merely addressing your question with some scripture verses that popped into my head.

For a person who doesn't care, you sure spend a lot of time "caring" here on this board.  And your opinion seems to matter, at least on this board, because people respond to you when you comment. It's all very mysterious, perhaps, but there we are.

And while I am impressed that you have scripture verses popping into your head, what did you actually intend to say by posting them?

Perhaps you can come up with some practical, real-world alternative uses for the Church's 32 billion dollar stock portfolio that would benefit the people of the world, while at the same time continuing to maintain a financial stability that would enable the Church to continue to benefit them.  But you have to keep in mind that feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and sheltering the homeless are only a secondary part of its mission.  In case you've forgotten, the Church's primary mission is Christ's mission, which is salvation from sin and its concomitant, bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.  And for the Church to be able to perform its primary mission, were the Church to divest itself of all its assets to give them to the poor, resulting in the poverty of the Church, that poverty would do little if anything to advance that primary mission, and might even cause it to fail.  Because the day when missionaries went out without purse or scrip, relying upon the generosity of whom they met (which is the primary focus of that little list of scriptures you quoted), is over, at least in the modern world.  Today, if you go out without funds and a place to rest your head, you will be arrested for vagrancy, and incarcerated vagrants can only preach to those few who are in jail with themselves.

As for charitable work, people who are themselves well off, the millions nay billions of people in the world for whom food, clothing and shelter are already secured, perhaps they should consider donating to whatever relief organization they feel will best help those who are in need -- instead of spending all their time and money considering what next new frivolous thing they can buy that will not actually make themselves happier, and grumbling over how one particular religious organization spends its resources.

[Stargazer]

On 5/31/2018 at 5:08 AM, sunstoned said:

How about in the hands of the poor?  Soup kitchens, hospitals, and humanitarian aid sound like a good place to start.  

A church that has 32 billion in stocks, a massive real estate portfolio, including ownership of 2% of the state of Florida and at the same time hitting up poverty level African members for money are not facts that set well with a lot of people.  I think this is why the church shuns transparency. 

For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. (Matthew 6:21)

You're as good as Analytics for twisting scripture to suit your needs, so kudos!  Where's your treasure then?  Heaven?  Or somewhere else?

You seem to be taking the same tack as Analytics in responding to what I wrote, so perhaps I can adapt what I wrote for him to your case here.

But first of all, let's address your "hitting up poverty level African members for money" calumny.  Do you really think that the Church can excuse broad swathes of people from the commandment to pay tithing?  You know, like it says here:  "Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings." (Malachi 3:8) The only people that I am aware of who are exempt from paying tithing are full-time missionaries, and that would be because they are giving 100% of their time and talents to the Lord.  And in case you missed the turn, paying tithing, at least according the scriptures (did you forget this one, too?) is a blessing, not a curse: "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." (Malachi 3:10). 

And then we have the widow in Mark 12: "And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing."  And when she did this, did Jesus rush over to stop her, or reach into the vessel to haul out her two mites to chide her for giving when she should be receiving?  Nope!  "[H]e called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury: For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living."  

It may be the case that you simply do not believe that paying tithing has any utility other than making it possible for General Authorities to buy comfortable housing.  If this is the case, then so be it.

As for the real estate, you do realize that most of the church's real estate has meetinghouses and temples sitting on it?  Do you propose to offer your home as a meetinghouse when the Church sells all its real estate?

And finally, let me address your suggestion that the Church should hand over its assets to the poor.  Perhaps you can come up with some practical, real-world alternative uses for the Church's 32 billion dollar stock portfolio that would benefit the people of the world, while at the same time continuing to maintain a financial stability that would enable the Church to continue to benefit them.  But you have to keep in mind that feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and sheltering the homeless are only a secondary part of its mission.  In case you've forgotten, the Church's primary mission is Christ's mission, which is salvation from sin and its concomitant, bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.  And for the Church to be able to perform its primary mission, were the Church to divest itself of all its assets to give them to the poor, resulting in the poverty of the Church, that poverty would do little if anything to advance that primary mission, and might even cause it to fail.  Because the day when missionaries went out without purse or scrip, relying upon the generosity of whom they met (which is the primary focus of that little list of scriptures you quoted), is over, at least in the modern world.  Today, if you go out without funds and a place to rest your head, you will be arrested for vagrancy, and incarcerated vagrants can only preach to those few who are in jail with themselves.

As for charitable work, people who are themselves well off, the millions nay billions of people in the world for whom food, clothing and shelter are already secured, perhaps they should consider donating to whatever relief organization they feel will best help those who are in need -- instead of spending all their time and money considering what next new frivolous thing they can buy that will not actually make themselves happier, and grumbling over how one particular religious organization spends its resources.

[Marginal Gains]

28 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

As for charitable work, people who are themselves well off, the millions nay billions of people in the world for whom food, clothing and shelter are already secured, perhaps they should consider donating to whatever relief organization they feel will best help those who are in need -- instead of spending all their time and money...

...on a Church stashing tens of billions of dollars in the stock market, commercial and residential property investments etc whilst handing out the equivalent of loose change and calling it a humanitarian programme.

[Stargazer]

Just now, Marginal Gains said:

...on a Church stashing tens of billions of dollars in the stock market, commercial and residential property investments etc whilst handing out the equivalent of loose change and calling it a humanitarian programme.

You know, if you're so critical of the Church's humanitarian programme (which is NOT, as I wrote, it's primary function) because you don't think they're doing enough, why don't YOU sell all you have and give it to the poor?  You'd be in a much more credible position to criticize others.

[Marginal Gains]

15 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

You know, if you're so critical of the Church's humanitarian programme (which is NOT, as I wrote, it's primary function) because you don't think they're doing enough, why don't YOU sell all you have and give it to the poor?  You'd be in a much more credible position to criticize others.

In what way have I criticised the actual humanitarian programme in terms of what it does? I’m saying it should and could be massively better funded. It would be a more honest use of member donations, in my opinion. What’s more important than helping the poor and needy?

And I guarantee that every penny of money donated to me for charitable causes goes to those exact causes. Directly. 100%. Not on building a stock portfolio.

Why does the Church need to be wealthy?

Edited June 1, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[Gray]

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2012/12/sacred-transformations?lang=eng

 

Quote

After reading these scriptures together, Bishop Orellana looked at the new convert and said, “If paying tithing means that you can’t pay for water or electricity, pay tithing. If paying tithing means that you can’t pay your rent, pay tithing. Even if paying tithing means that you don’t have enough money to feed your family, pay tithing. The Lord will not abandon you.”

 

President Nelson:

Quote

We preach tithing to the poor people of the world because the poor people of the world have had cycles of poverty, generation after generation. That same poverty continues from one generation to another, until people pay their tithing.

 

The prosperity gospel is alive and well in Mormonism. This is another worldly superstition that has crept into the church.

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

 

Quote

21 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.

Excellent point, especially in light of the actual nature of tithing as "increase."  Poverty-stricken people may well not have any "increase," and thus owe no tithing to the Lord.  Even in the case of American or Canadian family farmers, in any given year they may end up in the hole due to a bad harvest which does not even pay for expenses (seed, feed, equip rental, etc.).  In such case, there is no net profit, but rather money borrowed and owed -- until the next year when a good crop comes in and can pay off the debt.  Then ten percent is the Lord's in a kind of profit-sharing arrangement.  Challenging African members to pay tithing on their actual increase is certainly reasonable for a number of reasons, not least of which is the teaching of faith.  In addition, the teaching of self-discipline may also be very important:  I am thinking of the lack of discipline in the nation of Greece, in which the citizenry does not even pay taxes owed, and thus impoverishes the state.  The EU is left to financially support that undisciplined and once great country.  Like Germany, they could have a Wirtschaftswunder, but so far choose not to do so.

Edited June 1, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

You know, if you're so critical of the Church's humanitarian programme (which is NOT, as I wrote, it's primary function) because you don't think they're doing enough, why don't YOU sell all you have and give it to the poor?  You'd be in a much more credible position to criticize others.

In truth it wouldn't take much for an average person to criticize the amount the Church gives to humanitarian causes.  Allow me to explain.

Elder Oaks boasted the Church gives 40 million a year on average to humanitarian causes.  

Michael Quin estimates the Church takes in 33 billion a year in tithing in his book Wealth and Corporate Power

Quin may be way high, but if we go with his estimate...this is like a person who makes 100,000/year giving  121 bucks a year to charitable causes.  Let's add to that.

Oaks also boasted the Church gives 25 million man hours to humanitarian causes. If the Church has 5,000,000 members contributing to that 25 million hours that is 5 hours a year per person.  

Thus an average 100,000/year wage earner would only have to give 122 bucks to people in need and 6 hours a year helping someone in need in order to surpass the Church's contributions.  There would be absolutely no need for someone to give all they have in order to have grounds to criticize at all.  And since we know the Church has far more than tithing revenue, that suggests a person would actually have to give far less than these estimates in order to be on good grounds to criticize the Church.  

 

[Marginal Gains]

The UN will be fascinated to see the PowerPoint presentation by one of the Apostles that concludes that the 1 billion people who currently subsist on $1 a day would be able to end their poverty by giving $0.10 a day to a $multi-billion American Church.

If it works, why hasn’t this presentation already been made?

Serious question: If I cited a few examples of poor people who have paid tithing but not got out of poverty, would that be sufficient evidence for you to conclude that paying tithing doesn’t end poverty? If not, why do you believe it works the other way, where a few examples of people who have paid tithing and gotten out of poverty is sufficient to prove the principle?

Assuming you are intellectually honest enough to recognise that a few examples don’t prove the principle, what is the metric that would prove or disprove the idea? (The same applies to Priesthood Blessings of course).

Or, if you really do believe paying tithing ends poverty, write to the Head Of The UN and tell them. You will be doing them a massive favour and saving them a lot of time and effort. I’m serious, if that’s the way to get out of poverty the UN really needs to know. Write the letter.

Edited June 1, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[stemelbow]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Exactly how long is "always" for taking care of the needy?

Does giving it all away now while it is available ensure "always" while governments break down along with civilization? How many fast offerings will the church get if the whole world is starving ?

I don't know about you but I actually believe in this kind of stuff and I am glad the church will have a stash while I or my great grandchildren will not.

Exactly how many years will it have to last?

I think the big criticism here is far less that the Church doesn't give it all away, its that the Church gives less than a penny per hundred dollars away.  It's weird the Church is so boastful about giving to humanitarian causes, but when you break it down, they give far less than most Americans.  Let me explain:

Americans make an average of $35,000/year.

Americans give an average of $2,500 a year

The rate of giving for an average American is  7% of income.

On the other hand the Church gives approx. .1%.  

Its not that the Church has no humanitarian effort.  It's that the effort into humanitarianism by the Church shows that the Church has no to little interest in the venture.  It seems the only reason the Church gives anything is to boast about it.