The Church has $32 Billion in the Stock Market

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

How could you NOT know the church leaders not only believe in but are planning for the New Jerusalem?  It is all over the place in the scriptures!!

God's not making more real estate and it doesn't take much time to get stocks into tangible assets.

Bricks, mortar and concrete,  steel, bulldozers and even labor should be quite cheap during a major depression leading to a full meltdown. And the jobs become humanitarian aid to those who want to work.

This is common sense.

Try to see how others think. It isn't very hard.

After all, I once was an atheist too, but I got better. 

I was a pretty militant Marxist out to destroy the opium of the masses until I got educated in the philosophy of science.

It's everything about HOW things work and NOTHING about why it's all important.

What is the purpose of the earth?  Can a scientist answer that?

What's the purpose of YOUR life on earth and what should you do with your life's energy before you become dirt?  Can science tell you what is important in life??

Nope- only what you call "confirmation bias" can tell you anything about what is important in life- and YOU get to form your own biases all by yourself

You just don't see that.

Just gotta make sure that they sell BEFORE the crash.  I assume they’ll get some divine direction on that if it’s the purpose of the alleged stock account. 

 

[mfbukowski]

Ether 13:

Quote

 

1 And now I, Moroni, proceed to finish my record concerning the destruction of the people of whom I have been writing.

2 For behold, they rejected all the words of Ether; for he truly told them of all things, from the beginning of man; and that after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof;

3 And that it was the place of the New Jerusalem, which should come down out of heaven, and the holy sanctuary of the Lord.

4 Behold, Ether saw the days of Christ, and he spake concerning a New Jerusalem upon this land.

5 And he spake also concerning the house of Israel, and the Jerusalem from whence Lehi should come—after it should be destroyed it should be built up again, a holy city unto the Lord; wherefore, it could not be a new Jerusalem for it had been in a time of old; but it should be built up again, and become a holy city of the Lord; and it should be built unto the house of Israel—

6 And that a New Jerusalem should be built up upon this land, unto the remnant of the seed of Joseph, for which things there has been a type.

7 For as Joseph brought his father down into the land of Egypt, even so he died there; wherefore, the Lord brought a remnant of the seed of Joseph out of the land of Jerusalem, that he might be merciful unto the seed of Joseph that they should perish not, even as he was merciful unto the father of Joseph that he should perish not.

8 Wherefore, the remnant of the house of Joseph shall be built upon this land; and it shall be a land of their inheritance; and they shall build up a holy city unto the Lord, like unto the Jerusalem of old; and they shall no more be confounded, until the end come when the earth shall pass away.

9 And there shall be a new heaven and a new earth; and they shall be like unto the old save the old have passed away, and all things have become new.

10 And then cometh the New Jerusalem; and blessed are they who dwell therein, for it is they whose garments are white through the blood of the Lamb; and they are they who are numbered among the remnant of the seed of Joseph, who were of the house of Israel.

11 And then also cometh the Jerusalem of old; and the inhabitants thereof, blessed are they, for they have been washed in the blood of the Lamb; and they are they who were scattered and gathered in from the four quarters of the earth, and from the north countries, and are partakers of the fulfilling of the covenant which God made with their father, Abraham.

12 And when these things come, bringeth to pass the scripture which saith, there are they who were first, who shall be last; and there are they who were last, who shall be first.

13 And I was about to write more, but I am forbidden; but great and marvelous were the prophecies of Ether; but they esteemed him as naught, and cast him out; and he hid himself in the cavity of a rock by day, and by night he went forth viewing the things which should come upon the people.

 

And you want "TRANSPARENCY " when it appears the Lord doesn't want that?

And you think church leaders do not believe this?

Edited June 2, 2018 by mfbukowski

[smac97]

34 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I agree...so why don't they?

They do. Quite a bit actually.

[CV75]

14 hours ago, rockpond said:

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.

You're still misunderstanding the passage. From our correlated materials, the setting/background to the comment that the scribes were not required to reckon is explained here: https://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament-student-manual-kings-malachi/chapter-6?lang=eng

"(6-38) 2 Kings 12:1–16. Why Did Jehoash Take Away the Collection from the Priests?

"The account in Kings is a little difficult to follow, and it is not clear what exactly is happening. But the parallel account in 2 Chronicles 24:4–14 is more clearly written. Under Athaliah, Solomon’s temple had been vandalized and images of Baal set up within it. It seems to have been in a poor state of repair, and the king decided to take up a collection from the people to restore it. He gave the priests charge of this fund-raising, but “the Levites hastened it not” (2 Chronicles 24:5). In other words, they did not carry out their task very successfully. Therefore King Jehoash took the responsibility away from them (see 2 Kings 12:7–8). Instead, he set up a chest within the temple courtyard into which the people put money. He had his scribes collect it each day and used it to pay the workmen on the project."

That is the setting in which we see that, after the scribes (i.e. "the men [scribes], into whose hand they ["the king’s scribe and the high priest"] delivered the money to be bestowed on workmen") are the men that were not required to reckon (not the workmen, they simply got paid): "Moreover they ["the king’s scribe and the high priest"] reckoned not with the men, into whose hand they delivered the money [the scribes] to be bestowed on workmen: for they [the scribes paying the workmen] dealt faithfully." 

So rather, I am pointing out from the passage that disclosure is not required of those who deal faithfully (the Kings examples; I'm not sure what principle of disclosure you're getting from Malachi).

[mfbukowski]

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Just gotta make sure that they sell BEFORE the crash.  I assume they’ll get some divine direction on that if it’s the purpose of the alleged stock account. 

Not sure if that is sarcasm or not.  Yes divine direction, but I think pretty much anyone can tell when the market is going down and can predict it when the world situation deteriorates.  Moving that much stock could possibly even affect markets.

Do you sustain the leaders of the church?

If not I suppose it's time to turn in the recommend.....

You don't have to believe it, you just have to sustain them in what they are doing.  You get your own testimony on the first- that's up to you or not.

But "sustaining" does not include opposing their decisions.

I don't think that is disputable.   

 

Edited June 2, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Stargazer]

On 6/1/2018 at 2:16 PM, stemelbow said:

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

And so, how much do you make per year?  Since I don't want to know, let me assume $100k.  That's a very large amount of money, making you one of the richer people on the planet.  But is all 100 kilobucks disposable, that you can just decide from one minute to the next to give all of it to humanitarian causes?  I doubt it.  How much of that goes to your mortgage, food, utilities, your internet connection, car payments, auto insurance, life insurance, medical insurance, clothing, and many other of your expenses, including that nice vacation you're hopefully planning just before summer ends?  How much is left over to donate to charitable causes now? 

Do you see what I trying to tell you? That the Church has expenses, lots of expenses, including that fancy meetinghouse you worship in every Sunday, and the rest of the 20,000 or so buildings we meet in.  The electricity that these use is not free, neither is the water, and neither is building upkeep.  And now, do you still believe that 100% of the money coming in for tithing is disposable?  The other matter is, how much of it that IS disposable is supposed to go to humanitarian causes?  This is tithing we're talking about now.  Not Humanitarian Aid or Fast Offerings.

On 6/1/2018 at 2:16 PM, stemelbow said:

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.

I do believe that if you upped your humanitarian aid donations a bit, that would mean more would go to causes that need it.

On 6/1/2018 at 2:16 PM, stemelbow said:

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.  

 

My suggestion is that you should start donating more to the Church's humanitarian aid fund.  Wouldn't that make you feel better about all this, and perhaps on better ground to criticize how the Church uses the sacred funds vouchsafed to it for the work of the Lord?

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Well no, I disagree. It has a clear need for operating expenses. Which it obviously covers with extreme ease as the surplus has been amassed into a stock portfolio worth $32 billion, plus bonds, property and for-profit business interests. I’d say the operating costs for maintaining the portfolio of religious buildings is insignificant on the basis of how much surplus the Church has managed to stash away.

What does stashed away mean? Should you or I have someone else place limits on how much money we’re stashing away?  The Church is not anything like Bernie Madoff. 

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

How come building the New Jerusalem has not come up on this thread? 

Ahem. http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70618-the-church-has-32-billion-in-the-stock-market/?do=findComment&comment=1209822611

Last paragraph. It's just not in giant bold print like yours.

[Marginal Gains]

21 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

What does stashed away mean? Should you or I have someone else place limits on how much money we’re stashing away?  The Church is not anything like Bernie Madoff. 

Comparing the Church use of donated monies to an individuals use of personal monies is not a valid comparison. Nobody donated money to you or I with an expectation as to how we would use it.

Stashed away - means stashed away.

Edited June 2, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[mfbukowski]

33 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Ahem. http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70618-the-church-has-32-billion-in-the-stock-market/?do=findComment&comment=1209822611

Last paragraph. It's just not in giant bold print like yours.

I have never done well at understating things.

 

[RevTestament]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

I have never done well at understating things.

Well, I wasn't trying to understate anything. I just typically type in the default font. I am glad you, unlike everyone else on this thread, however, does feel some compunction on this issue. So kudos to you. Keep up the good vibes.

[mfbukowski]

20 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Well, I wasn't trying to understate anything. I just typically type in the default font. I am glad you, unlike everyone else on this thread, however, does feel some compunction on this issue. So kudos to you. Keep up the good vibes.

Thanks. 

At least it was noticed for what that is worth around here.

Besides I finally figured out how to do it, so I was playing a bit.

 

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

CFR that they don’t. 

You don't need a CFR...you got hungry people in the church all over the world and billions in stocks..what else do you need?

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

They do. Quite a bit actually.

They do quite a bit..yes, they do..so much on the backs of tithing and the volunteerism of the fine people in your wards/membership. 

[Stargazer]

On 6/1/2018 at 3:00 PM, Analytics said:

In the recent press release, the Church said that its two most fundamental budgeting principles are the following:

• Expenditures will not exceed forecasted revenue.
• The budget for operating expenses will not increase at a more rapid rate than anticipated tithing contributions.

What I infer from this is that they want to the church to perpetually grow its financial empire--the basic principle is that while sure, the "operating expenses" of spreading the gospel, redeeming the dead, and perfecting the Saints is great and all that, what's most important is that the corporate empire perpetually grows. (On the other hand I might be misinterpreting the relationship between "expenditures", "revenue", "operating expenses", and "tithing contributions." These are the hazards of dealing with a lack of transparency.)

What I infer from this is that the Church wants to provide for the day when the world economy goes sour again (inevitable), when tithing donations drop precipitously, and the worldwide work of the Church is in danger due to outgo exceeding income.  No doubt in such a situation, the portfolio would lose value, but a well-managed portfolio will include investments that will do well in downturns, to counter the ones that do not.  

 

On 6/1/2018 at 3:00 PM, Analytics said:

To the extent I had a real point behind that scriptural quote, it would be that in general, nobody should hoard money. In terms of the Church, I would admire a specific saving goal of, say, fully funding its pension obligations, enough savings to continue operations in a severe, seven-year economic crisis, and enough cash on hand to pay all expenses for a year. But the idea of perpetually saving up money for a rainy day--even after you have enough money to recover from 100 huricains--seems wrong to me.

Your opinion is that nobody should hoard money.  Fair enough, but what is hoarding?  Do you have a fund of money that you are holding onto for the day when you enter your "golden years" and retire to the good life?  Is that hoarding?  No?  You seem to think that people and organizations with a lot of wealth keep it all in a pit underneath their mansions, a la Scrooge McDuck. Perhaps President Nelson enjoys a plunge in the LDS Money Pit in the Conference Center basement once a week. 

Or perhaps not.

You seem to think that a $32 billion portfolio is worth $32 billion.  Sorry to burst your bubble, but it is not.  It's just like your house, assuming you own one.  You may believe that it is worth, say, $300K, because that's what the county assessor says it's worth, but put it on the market and you will find out differently.  In fact, in a recession when no-one is buying, if you have to sell it you may find that it is worth considerably less.  The same is true of supposedly enormous investment portfolios. What they are worth on paper may be very much more, or very much less than they may prove to be in the event of liquidating them.  Frequently, even the act of liquidating or partially liquidating a large investment portfolio may cause the real value to drop precipitously.  The buyer has to have confidence, after all, that what he is buying from you will have at least the same value after the purchase as it did beforehand.  And smart buyers will often want to know why such a large block of stock or bonds is being sold -- which may reduce the final sale price, depending upon many factors.  If you owned 10,000 shares of Microsoft stock, and decided to sell it all come Monday morning, in the absence of bad news nobody is going to worry about why you want to sell it, and you'll get the market price you expected.  If you owned a million shares, however, the very act of putting it on the market may cause the value to drop.  Or maybe even rise, depending upon the news.

You're entitled to believe anything you want about why the Church has that investment account of such a size (if it truly is that size, and the Church controls all of it), but not to denigrate your general intelligence level, as I'm sure you're a pretty smart guy, I don't think you're smart enough about the large-fund investment market to offer much in the way of good financial advice about it.

On 6/1/2018 at 3:00 PM, Analytics said:

Here is an interesting statistic. By a conservative estimate, Bill Gates has saved the lives of 122 million people. 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/14/bill-gates-philanthropy-warren-buffett-vaccines-infant-mortality

The amount of good that some people are doing in the world is staggering.

Yes it is, and I actually love Bill Gates, in a brotherly sense!  He is a good man doing good works, who deserves great praise and regard.  Most of my computer programming career was spent working with Microsoft software and development tools, and I have a warm feeling for that company and its founders.

Gates started his charitable foundation in 2000 with seed money of $2 billion.  As of 2014 he had donated $28 billion to the foundation, and its net worth was $44 billion at the end of 2014.  Since 2006 Warren Buffet has been donating about $2 billion per year (in Berkshire Hathaway stock) to the foundation, with certain conditions as to its use.  As you point out, Bill Gates has done a lot of good in the world, but he has done it mostly but not all through his foundation.   

The only purpose of the Gates Foundation is to do charitable work in the world, and it can freely do so without much need to worry about next year or the next decade. Do you think that the Gates Foundation could give away all its funds in one stroke?  Of course it could, but that would stop its charitable activities permanently.  So perhaps it should not do so, and should continue to "hoard" its assets.  Even if it has enough assets to pay for 100 hurricanes.  The same can be said for the LDS Church, which has enormously more physical plant to maintain, and considerably less disposable wealth. 

By the way, Bill Gate's net worth this morning is in excess of $92 billion dollars.  He's one of those money hoarders you were being doubtful about, along with his partner in philanthropy Warren Buffet, whose net worth this morning was in excess of $87 billion dollars.  Combined, that's nearly $180 billion dollars.  Neither Gates nor Buffett, however, have enormous financial responsibilities and futures that they need to watch out for, like the Church does.  Gates and Buffett could each sell virtually all their assets, and except for a few billion dollars each, live in their existing homes in enormous luxury for the rest of their lives.  Surely their descendants would be content with the remainder once the two men and their wives are done with this life?  They don't NEED all those billions.  Yet they keep them.  Should they?

 

[Stargazer]

On 6/1/2018 at 3:07 PM, rockpond said:

I believe it as well. 

We certainly shouldn’t give it all away.  I’ve never suggested such an absurdity.  

Always means always.  Forever.  No limit on the years.  But you raise a good point:  if governments and civilization break down, what would $32B in stock provide for us or the poor?

Heh. If governments and civilization break down, $32B  won't do anyone any good.  As I understand it, however, that is going to happen "soon", in the runup to the Millennium. But until that time it would be wise to maintain such stock portfolios in order to foster the work of the Lord.

[smac97]

53 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

They do quite a bit..yes, they do..so much on the backs of tithing and the volunteerism of the fine people in your wards/membership. 

I don't understand.   You speak as if having the members consecrate their means and labor to serving their fellow man is a bad thing.  Am I reading you correctly? 

Thanks,

-Smac

[Jeanne]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand.   You speak as if having the members consecrate their means and labor to serving their fellow man is a bad thing.  Am I reading you correctly? 

Thanks,

-Smac

It is not..and that is not what I mean.  So much of what the church does they cannot do without the monetary contributions and labor of it's members..they are wonderful.  But so much could be done with surplus that the church already has.  Service is a wonderful thing..I agree.  For many years, my grandparents were paid a stipend to clean the church..that was taken away..The church has money to help its members in many ways..and it is their money!!  Their tithes to the Lord for which those blessings belong. 

[Stargazer]

32 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

It is not..and that is not what I mean.  So much of what the church does they cannot do without the monetary contributions and labor of it's members..they are wonderful.  But so much could be done with surplus that the church already has.  Service is a wonderful thing..I agree.  For many years, my grandparents were paid a stipend to clean the church..that was taken away..The church has money to help its members in many ways..and it is their money!!  Their tithes to the Lord for which those blessings belong. 

A great deal of the verbiage being directed at the Church in this thread seems to be based on the understanding that the church has $32 billion dollars sitting in its money pit and it seems that some of the posters here want the Church to buy a bulldozer in order to unload some of it into some deserving causes.  

May I suggest you read this earlier post of mine? http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70618-the-church-has-32-billion-in-the-stock-market/?do=findComment&comment=1209823684

 

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

You don't need a CFR...you got hungry people in the church all over the world and billions in stocks..what else do you need?

Isn’t that what fast offerings are for which haven’t been discussed?  I bet many reading this thread have made use of that money for food or utilities or mortgage. I have in the past a couple of times.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

It is not..and that is not what I mean.  So much of what the church does they cannot do without the monetary contributions and labor of it's members..they are wonderful.  But so much could be done with surplus that the church already has.  Service is a wonderful thing..I agree.  For many years, my grandparents were paid a stipend to clean the church..that was taken away..The church has money to help its members in many ways..and it is their money!!  Their tithes to the Lord for which those blessings belong. 

That’s bad accounting if you don’t take into consideration future expenses as others noted. A surplus isn’t a surplus if you have big bills arriving in a month. People who budget based purely upon what’s in the bank (sadly far too many) end up in financial trouble.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

The only purpose of the Gates Foundation is to do charitable work in the world, and it can freely do so without much need to worry about next year or the next decade. 

I posted earlier on this and the business and tax benefits of having a private foundation and though I do not know Mr. Gates' or how sincere his charitable intent is, the purpose of any foundation is seldom if ever to "do good".

Without a foundation, his tax on any amount over about 20 million could run as high as 40% of his total wealth.

I don't think he would like that going to the government, as charitable as he might be. 

That discussion can be found on page 23 of this thread starting with this post:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70618-the-church-has-32-billion-in-the-stock-market/?do=findComment&comment=1209823613

 

Edited June 3, 2018 by mfbukowski

[rockpond]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

You're still misunderstanding the passage. From our correlated materials, the setting/background to the comment that the scribes were not required to reckon is explained here: https://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament-student-manual-kings-malachi/chapter-6?lang=eng

"(6-38) 2 Kings 12:1–16. Why Did Jehoash Take Away the Collection from the Priests?

"The account in Kings is a little difficult to follow, and it is not clear what exactly is happening. But the parallel account in 2 Chronicles 24:4–14 is more clearly written. Under Athaliah, Solomon’s temple had been vandalized and images of Baal set up within it. It seems to have been in a poor state of repair, and the king decided to take up a collection from the people to restore it. He gave the priests charge of this fund-raising, but “the Levites hastened it not” (2 Chronicles 24:5). In other words, they did not carry out their task very successfully. Therefore King Jehoash took the responsibility away from them (see 2 Kings 12:7–8). Instead, he set up a chest within the temple courtyard into which the people put money. He had his scribes collect it each day and used it to pay the workmen on the project."

That is the setting in which we see that, after the scribes (i.e. "the men [scribes], into whose hand they ["the king’s scribe and the high priest"] delivered the money to be bestowed on workmen") are the men that were not required to reckon (not the workmen, they simply got paid): "Moreover they ["the king’s scribe and the high priest"] reckoned not with the men, into whose hand they delivered the money [the scribes] to be bestowed on workmen: for they [the scribes paying the workmen] dealt faithfully." 

So rather, I am pointing out from the passage that disclosure is not required of those who deal faithfully (the Kings examples; I'm not sure what principle of disclosure you're getting from Malachi).

Yes.   And I was pointing out that in the Kings passages that you cited, the King had to take the responsibility away from the priests who were not doing what they were supposed to do with sacred funds.  

Similarly, in Malachi 3, the priests were accused of robbing God for not using tithes appropriately. 

Given these examples combined with the Lord’s warnings in the D&C and the mandate of common consent, I’m not sure why we wouldn’t expect financial disclosure by the Brethren.  Was any explanation ever given for why they stopped doing it in the 50’s?

[mrmarklin]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

What does stashed away mean? Should you or I have someone else place limits on how much money we’re stashing away?  The Church is not anything like Bernie Madoff. 

It’s only $2K per person, so not so much. 

[rockpond]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Not sure if that is sarcasm or not.  Yes divine direction, but I think pretty much anyone can tell when the market is going down and can predict it when the world situation deteriorates.  Moving that much stock could possibly even affect markets.

Do you sustain the leaders of the church?

If not I suppose it's time to turn in the recommend.....

You don't have to believe it, you just have to sustain them in what they are doing.  You get your own testimony on the first- that's up to you or not.

But "sustaining" does not include opposing their decisions.

I don't think that is disputable.   

 

It wasn’t sarcasm. 

I do sustain my leaders.  But that also doesn’t mean I have to agree 100% with every decision they make.