The Church has $32 Billion in the Stock Market

[ttribe]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

That is not only fair--it made me smile.

As far as the type of transparency that I am gently suggesting, all I would want to see is a booklet with a couple of paragraphs that say how the church did financially over the last year, and then just a little more detail, like a pie graph that shows how much income went towards each item in the 3.1-fold mission of the Church, how much towards overhead, and how much towards savings. If it then said this is what our savings objectives are, presented a high-level three-page financial statement with the income statement, balance sheet, and budget for the last year, and then gave some information about executive compensation, I would give them a four-star score on transparency.

Perhaps one more item to add - an independent audit opinion.

[Lemuel]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

I'm sure that is part of it, but it raises the question, "and then what?" Once the business empire grows to the point where earned interest and dividends fund 110% of its operating expenses, then what? Will it declare at that point that it doesn't need tithing and that members should tithe to the charity of their choice? If not, then what's the objective here?

I admit that this is just me being cynical, but I think they personally enjoy growing the corporate holdings just as you or I would enjoy winning a good game of Monopoly. I and think that ultimately, that is the real driver.

Ever heard of Universal Paperclips?  

https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2017/10/11/16457742/ai-paperclips-thought-experiment-game-frank-lantz

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Paperclips

 

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Thanks for that acknowledgement. 

I know from personal correspondence that he was banned. 

It resulted from a string of events stemming from his use of a word that was not in the vocabulary of the one to whom he was responding and that person incorrectly interpreting the word as an insult. The moderator did not know what the word meant either and so sustained the complaint against Kiwi. Some of us pushed back.

From that point, the moderator was gunning for Kiwi, whose banning soon followed. 

It's hard to believe that this was why he was banned, seeing has how he'd been banned from the board multiple times.  Maybe it was the straw that broke the camel's back, but that one straw probably wasn't the reason.  He had a great perspective but he was always so snarky and condescending!  

I love for him to come back but if he doesn't see a problem with his posting style (or feels justified in how he posts), then what good would it do?  He'd just be banned again.

[smac97]

9 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I have already provided multiple proofs where the church has instructed members specifically in poverty stricken nations to pay their tithing first. 

I'd ask you to consider your objection here.  I get that you think that "members [] in poverty stricken nations" should not be instructed to obey God in the same ways that the rest of us are.  Have you considered whether our poor brothers and sisters want to contribute to the Lord's Church in the same ways that the rest of us are?

I served my mission in Taiwan.  Years ago the Church purchased a block in the middle of Taipei, on which now stands the Taipei Temple and a large stake center.  The current stake center was built relatively recently.  When I was there in the early 90s, the previous stake center was still standing.  My mission president, Harvey Horner, had been a missionary in Taiwan at the time (in the 1960s, IIRC) and helped build it.  I remember hearing some stories about how proud the members were to build the chapel, apparently the first one on the island.  They wanted to contribute to the building up of the Church.  They did so with fast offerings, and also with manual labor in helping build the stake center.  These days, members can't contribute with manual labor, just with tithing funds, so they do that.

I think the story of the Widow's Mite in Mark 12 becomes relevant:

Quote

41 ¶ And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.
42 And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.
43 And he 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:
44 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.

Is it possible that the poor of the earth might want to "cast more in?"  That they might not want to be considered lesser because of their poverty (which, in essence, is what we are doing when we say to them "Hey, sorry, you cannot contribute to the Lord's kingdom the way others can.  Come back when you have more money.")?

In my ward we have a very elderly gentlemen.  Well into his eighties.  His wife died years ago.  He has real difficulty in standing up and sitting down.  But each and every Sunday he helps with the administration of the Sacrament by standing up and closing one of the back doors, and acts as usher until the ordinance is over, then he opens the door again and sits down.  Our bishop could, I suppose, approach him and tell him to stop doing that, that there are other members who are stronger or better situated to handle that act of service.  Can you see how demeaning it would be for the bishop to do this?  To tell him his contribution to our ward isn't needed or wanted?  Instead, the bishop is grateful that this good brother stands and serves his brothers and sisters in what ways he can. 

Service to others.  Consecration.  Selflessness.  Blessings flow when members of the Church devote themselves to these things.  So isn't it possible that the Church has such things in mind when it offers all of us the same opportunity to serve?  The same opportunity to obey the commandments of God?  The same opportunity to obtain blessings from such things?

Consider also the motives of the leaders of the Church who are inviting the poor to tithe.  The Church, as we have seen lately, has a lot of money.  The membership of the Church in impoverished areas (like Zimbabwe, where my parents are currently serving) are nowhere near self-sufficiency.  The Church is pouring far more money and resources into these sorts of places than it gets from them.  But over time, with faith and hard work, these places can become more self-sufficient, both in terms of membership numbers, leadership capacity, and perhaps even financially.  Wouldn't that be a good thing?  Do we really want to keep our poor brothers and sisters dependent upon others?  Isn't self-reliance a worthy objective?  And if the Gospel is what it claims to be, then isn't obedience to its precepts a necessary component of self-improvement and self-reliance?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 1, 2018 by smac97

[sunstoned]

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

I'm sure that is part of it, but it raises the question, "and then what?" Once the business empire grows to the point where earned interest and dividends fund 110% of its operating expenses, then what? Will it declare at that point that it doesn't need tithing and that members should tithe to the charity of their choice? If not, then what's the objective here?

I admit that this is just me being cynical, but I think they personally enjoy growing the corporate holdings just as you or I would enjoy winning a good game of Monopoly. I and think that ultimately, that is the real driver.

I would like to see the church get to a place where they can say enough is enough.  Kinda like Bill and Linda Gates. I would like to see them say It's time to shift from wealth accumulation to humanitarian service. Once this happened, I'm sure the church would be viewed in a much more favorable light.

[sunstoned]

2 hours ago, kllindley said:

I feel like you missed the actual substance of the post.  He didn't reveal to Nephi why a second set of plates was necessary.  He didn't even tell Mormon why to include the Small Plates of Nephi.  What if the Lord is telling Prophet what to do, but not telling them why?

Apparently we (the body of the church that finances everything) don't know what or if any thing the Lord has told the leadership to do.  

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

There is.  "Transparency" doesn't necessarily mean "Everyone in the entire world knows about it," nor even the general public.

Who check up on each other.  Who are trained and qualified to do so.

No, I don't.  But my ward's finances are "transparent" to the stake, and the area presidency, and so on.

Those who need acces to my ward's finances have it.

What "matter" are you proposing we have "a common consent vote" about?

I can appreciate that.  A member of my ward will not have information about how the bishop and the various ward organizations spend money.  The ward council knows quite a bit, though.  And the bishop.  And the stake president.  So the ward member does not know the particulars of how the bishop handles the finances, but he does have an assurance that others do, and that there are safeguards in place to ensure the bishop is behaving himself.

At the end of the day, the ward member gets to cast a sustaining or opposing vote for or against the bishop (when he is called, and thereafter at ward conference, and also in temple recommend interviews and during General Conference).  He doesn't have get a vote on each and every decision the bishop makes, though.  If the bishop does something egregious, or engages in a pattern of lesser misconduct, or otherwise creates a concern, the individual can (and should) cast a dissenting vote (and even bring such concerns to the immediate attention of the stake president).  But does the individual have the right to review how the bishop administers fast offerings?  Allocates budgets?  Approves food orders and commodities orders?  I don't think so.

Thanks,

-Smac

You can’t even explain how those various committees check up on each other, what policies they hold themselves to, how the budgets support the mission of the church.  You have nothing on which to consent. 

What do I propose?  Present an annual financial report and a budget.  Allow members to review and then consent.  I think it would be a beautiful, unifying, and faith promoting event.  I think that’s why the Lord asked us to do it. 

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

When it comes to the Church leaders' management of money and transparency, the Old Testament allows at least two precedents for principles related to managing sacred funds (plus the D&C has a few more, as well as on common consent relative to financial management and those managing sacred funds):

2 Kings 12:11, 15, "And they gave the money, being told, into the hands of them that did the work, that had the oversight of the house of the Lord: and they laid it out ...Moreover they reckoned not with the men, into whose hand they delivered the money to be bestowed on workmen: for they dealt faithfully." -- Under King Joash.

2 Kings 22: 4-7, "Go up to Hilkiah the high priest, that he may sum the silver which is brought into the house of the Lord, which the keepers of the door have gathered of the people: And let them deliver it into the hand of [them] that have the oversight of the house of the Lord: and let them[administer it]... Howbeit there was no reckoning made with them of the money that was delivered into their hand, because they dealt faithfully." -- Under King Josiah.

If you read those verses in context, you’ll note that in both chapters 12 and 22 of 1 Kings, it is the king needing to go to the priests to tell them what to do with the money they collected.  The king seems to feel that the priests have been derelict with the funds by not keeping the temple in good condition.  

The “they” who dealt faithfully with the money and did not need to be reckoned with refers to the tradesmen who were hired, not the priests. 

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Is your whole argument against transparency that we don't know what the church leaders have planned and we "ought not to know"? We have no clue what their plans are because they don't tell us. Transparency would cure that condition. It's a solvable problem. The church can be transparent about its plans and how it uses funds.

You state that we ought not to know the church's plans or how it goes about funding them as if it is a foregone conclusion. Yet I don't understand it. Why should church membership be left unaware of the plans and funding? What is the reasoning for that? Are we only to give common consent to the people serving and not to what they are doing? How can church membership give consent to that which they have no clue about?

I already stated the reason.

I know it's shocking but the church actually has enemies.

Want to buy a temple site is location X? The price just doubled.

Want to move missionaries quietly into country Y? The dictator just said no.

Of course nobody else here actually believes this but the church might actually know all kinds of stuff about the future which would not be wise to disclose.

If that is not apparent to you then I'm not sure that there's much more to discuss about it. How smart was it for Obama to tell Iraq exactly went they were pulling out?

Should we reveal other military plans in advance? And are you actually qualified to evaluate those plans if you knew them? Who is?

Transparency in terms of strategy is ridiculous to even contemplate. I know you are a happy guy but there are actually bad people out there.

It's pure naivete to expect disclosure and transparency. I think you folks live in Disneyland.

Edited June 2, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I said Bishop’s storehouse.

Uh,no you said this

"From what I understand they have the Bishops front the money and reimburse similar to how they handle the majority of auxiliary expenses here in the states."

[CV75]

54 minutes ago, rockpond said:

If you read those verses in context, you’ll note that in both chapters 12 and 22 of 1 Kings, it is the king needing to go to the priests to tell them what to do with the money they collected.  The king seems to feel that the priests have been derelict with the funds by not keeping the temple in good condition.  

The “they” who dealt faithfully with the money and did not need to be reckoned with refers to the tradesmen who were hired, not the priests. 

I think you're missing the context on a coupe of levels and in a couple of ways.  If you read and comprehend the verses, it was the scribes who the king entrusted to collect the funds and pay the workmen (ch. 12 only; there is no such issue with the priests in ch. 22). In both cases (contexts), there was no reckoning required of those dealing faithfully, and that is the contextual principle I'm referring to, not the titles of offices and trying to match them up with modern LDS leaders. *sigh*

[esodije]

Jubilee from tithing?

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I think that’s why the Lord asked us to do it. 

Maybe at one time... Another round of what "common consent" means, anyone?

[CV75]

2 minutes ago, esodije said:

Jubilee from tithing?

Yes, every 4.9 years

[Benjamin Seeker]

35 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Uh,no you said this

"From what I understand they have the Bishops front the money and reimburse similar to how they handle the majority of auxiliary expenses here in the states."

Then you said a slush fund would be worse to which I replied with my original suggestion of building a storehouse. We are not winning the communication battle.

But since you’re more concerned with my assumption about how things operate in Brazil and just for funsies, here is the response to my inquiry about a bishop’s storehouse from my mission buddy who is a Brazilian and has been a branch president there:

“we don’t have those here (bishop’s Storehouse) ... Usually, the bishop buying food in a supermarket and he takes in the person's home.”

Also while on my mission in another part of Brazil, when one of my serious investigators was in need, I witnessed the Bishop pull up in a car with a large bag of rice and give it to the family.

My mission experience and my buddy’s comment, along with my experience with church expenses here in the states, led me to believe that Brazilian Bishops front the money and get reimbursed. 

 

 

[Benjamin Seeker]

Saw this on Facebook and thought it informed this conversation:

“Venezuelan's are killing dogs for meat, and are making 2usd a month as their economy suffers hyperinflation. Elder Godoy of the 70 tells the Venezuelan members that if they tithe they will come out of their current crisis. A people in desperation might do just that. Even if it means skipping meals. Shameful!!!

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iu69o5Hj8sLOjHkTXG029xHrjkRMDtWz/view?usp=drivesdk”

Edited June 2, 2018 by Benjamin Seeker

[mfbukowski]

25 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Then you said a slush fund would be worse to which I replied with my original suggestion of building a storehouse. We are not winning the communication battle.

But since you’re more concerned with my assumption about how things operate in Brazil and just for funsies, here is the response to my inquiry about a bishop’s storehouse from my mission buddy who is a Brazilian and has been a branch president there:

“we don’t have those here (bishop’s Storehouse) ... Usually, the bishop buying food in a supermarket and he takes in the person's home.”

Also while on my mission in another part of Brazil, when one of my serious investigators was in need, I witnessed the Bishop pull up in a car with a large bag of rice and give it to the family.

My mission experience and my buddy’s comment, along with my experience with church expenses here in the states, led me to believe that Brazilian Bishops front the money and get reimbursed. 

Sorry about the miscommunication 

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

What would you consider negative income? If you’re implying what I’m thinking, I’m intrigued.

As I responded to Hamba Tuhan yesterday in this thread:

Quote

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.

Were you thinking of the real life example of a family farm which had a bad year, was in debt, and needed a good harvest in a subsequent year to get out of debt?

Edited June 2, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

It's hard to believe that this was why he was banned, seeing has how he'd been banned from the board multiple times.  Maybe it was the straw that broke the camel's back, but that one straw probably wasn't the reason.  He had a great perspective but he was always so snarky and condescending!  

I love for him to come back but if he doesn't see a problem with his posting style (or feels justified in how he posts), then what good would it do?  He'd just be banned again.

Are you sure his “posting style” is fully the cause? 

I think it has as much or more to do with the fact he is a supremely effective debater, the best I’ve seen on these boards over the years, with the exception of smac97 and Daniel Peterson, who hasn’t posted here in a long time. 

People don’t like being bested in argumentation, so when it happens repeatedly, they try to get even by vilifying the one who outwits them. We’ve seen it happen over the years to Dr. Peterson, with critics and adversaries feeding the slanderous, unfounded myth that he is a horrible person, when nothing could be further from the truth. 

With Kiwi, though, the resentment is probably manifested in numerous complaints to moderators, the cumulative effect of which is they get annoyed at having to deal with them, so they begin to seize on excusss to get rid of him, like his “abrasiveness” or his “posting style.” 

 

 

[Calm]

Dan Peterson didn't get banned, from what I recall; Pahoran did quite a bit.  It was that way on ZLMB as well because Pahoran couldn't resist taking it personal (speaking as one of the mods there who decided to ban him back then, he was really good about not complaining about being banned; I always appreciated that).

Since Peterson and other effective debaters (for example Smac) haven't gotten banned tons, it likely wasn't primarily accusations from people resentful he was a great debater.

 It is not like Pahoran has just started getting banned, it’s been going on a long time.

Edited June 2, 2018 by Calm

[Lemuel]

2 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Saw this on Facebook and thought it informed this conversation:

“Venezuelan's are killing dogs for meat, and are making 2usd a month as their economy suffers hyperinflation. Elder Godoy of the 70 tells the Venezuelan members that if they tithe they will come out of their current crisis. A people in desperation might do just that. Even if it means skipping meals. Shameful!!!

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iu69o5Hj8sLOjHkTXG029xHrjkRMDtWz/view?usp=drivesdk”

Fortunately, with hyperinflation, Venezuelan saints get to pay tithing in worthless Venezuelan currency.

[JulieM]

42 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Are you sure his “posting style” is fully the cause? 

I think it has as much or more to do with the fact he is a supremely effective debater, the best I’ve seen on these boards over the years, with the exception of smac97 and Daniel Peterson, who hasn’t posted here in a long time. 

People don’t like being bested in argumentation, so when it happens repeatedly, they try to get even by vilifying the one who outwits them. 

Speaking from my perspective, I rarely saw him “ best” anyone.  He resorted to taking debates personal and for me, that’s not a good debate style.  When you have to resort to personal attacks, it’s not a good sign.  It often means you’re losing the argument.  IMO, he wasn’t effective much at all and I started skipping his posts.  “Abrasive” is the perfect word to describe his manner of posting.  I’d imagine that’s why he was repeatedly banned.

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think you're missing the context on a coupe of levels and in a couple of ways.  If you read and comprehend the verses, it was the scribes who the king entrusted to collect the funds and pay the workmen (ch. 12 only; there is no such issue with the priests in ch. 22). In both cases (contexts), there was no reckoning required of those dealing faithfully, and that is the contextual principle I'm referring to, not the titles of offices and trying to match them up with modern LDS leaders. *sigh*

Okay... so you were just pointing out that there were some people (the tradesman) who did not need a reckoning because they dealt faithfully, right?

And I am pointing out that it was those who were originally collecting the offerings (the priests) who had to be told to put those funds to use for their intended purpose since they were being neglectful. Not unlike the Malachi 3 passage that is so often cited with respect to tithing.

So I’d say that both Kings and Malachi support the need for disclosure.

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Are you sure his “posting style” is fully the cause? 

I think it has as much or more to do with the fact he is a supremely effective debater, the best I’ve seen on these boards over the years, with the exception of smac97 and Daniel Peterson, who hasn’t posted here in a long time. 

People don’t like being bested in argumentation, so when it happens repeatedly, they try to get even by vilifying the one who outwits them. We’ve seen it happen over the years to Dr. Peterson, with critics and adversaries feeding the slanderous, unfounded myth that he is a horrible person, when nothing could be further from the truth. 

With Kiwi, though, the resentment is probably manifested in numerous complaints to moderators, the cumulative effect of which is they get annoyed at having to deal with them, so they begin to seize on excusss to get rid of him, like his “abrasiveness” or his “posting style.” 

 

 

No, i don’t think he was banned because he was such an effective debater. 

 

[Benjamin Seeker]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As I responded to Hamba Tuhan yesterday in this thread:

Were you thinking of the real life example of a family farm which had a bad year, was in debt, and needed a good harvest in a subsequent year to get out of debt?

So, in this case you’re balancing business income and business expenses only, or would you consider the mortgage for their family home as well?