The Church has $32 Billion in the Stock Market

[Gray]

Also, in light of current events, it might be prudent for MormonLeaks to change its name. I assume the idea is based on WikiLeaks? WikiLeaks isn't about transparency, it's a Russian funded operation intended to weaken the US. Hopefully MormonLeaks doesn't want to be seen as something similar - some kind of anti-Mormon operation intended to weaken the LDS church.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

............... I would also support a tax policy requiring all churches to disclose finances.

Isn't that required in some jurisdictions?  England, Australia, etc.

[Gray]

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Isn't that required in some jurisdictions?  England, Australia, etc.

Yes, both of those, I believe. I think that's a good common sense law.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

...........................................

The church published the Joseph Smith Papers as a reaction to questions correlation was not prepared for.  But, for some it was too little too late.  The early protection of faith at the sacrifice of truth only put the Church leadership on the defensive in that case.  We lost time, credibility, and membership.

........................

OTOH we may well be rid of the faithless few who automatically suspect foul play in the absence of disclosure -- in history, finances, etc.

[pogi]

As to the 32 billion figure - I highly doubt that accounts for tithing donations.  32 billion only equates to 2 thousand dollars/member, with 16 million members.  That just is not that much money considering that members are expected to pay 10% of their income to the church!  Granted, not all members are full tithe payers, and most members live in more developing countries with lower incomes, but I would still expect to see much higher reserves then that with tithing money alone, not accounting for all of the successful business enterprises of the church.  I am guessing the 32 billion is only accounting for those church business earnings and not tithing dollars.  

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The early Christians, like the Essenes, were communist in their economic cooperation with one another -- perhaps like the United Order -- which leaves us with no real comparison with current practice.

As to cajoling the abject poor to pay tithing, when that would leave them suffering malnutrition or worse, is that really what the Mormon Church sponsors in poverty-stricken regions?  Is you portrayal of the heartless LDS Church correct, or just plain absurd and untrue?

Well, it just shows how we operate today is very different than the early Christians.  

As for asking the poor for tithing, I'm not aware of any different policies with respect to how the poor are asked to give tithing by church leaders and in conference talks and official correlated LDS teachings today, although I am aware of some different language in the past.  If you are aware of something, please share.  

[Exiled]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Individuals dress their motives in noble words when the reality is far different.  Such an innocent - though screeching whine - all I want is for the church to disclose their finances.  Yeah, right.  We don't demand transparency of ourselves, quite the opposite we demand privacy.  We don't demand transparency from anything and nothing gives it to us.  Why the focus on the LDS Church?  What is the real motivation for this incessant whine about the Church and its finances?

That is the delusion - I just want honesty in the Church - yet the real reason is something different.  

What do you think the real reason is? For me, it just seems hypocritical to demand disclosure of membership earnings to the church through tithing and not reciprocate. Tithing is supposed to be 10% of your increase so the church has a rough idea of what the members are making but members don't have a clue about church finances. Also, it is a church and churches should act in the light.

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

40 million a year to the poor and the needy sounds silly in light of this stuff.

1 billion spent on the mall doesn't sound like that big of deal anymore.  

Yeah...  now who was it who complained to Jesus about the alabaster container of spikenard being sold and given to the poor?

Nevermind. You know what happens when you take all your assets and give them to the poor?  When the poor have finished consuming them, you don't have any more to give.  But the earnings from those assets, if retained and properly managed, means that one can continue to help the poor.

I notice that people like Bill Gates and his rich friends keep their money, but put it into trusts that benefit humanity in general.  Do we gripe about how rich they are, or praise them for using their assets to help people?

Why don't you sell all you own and give it to the poor?  Jesus asked the young rich man to do that, but he wouldn't do it.  On the other hand, Joseph of Arimathea was apparently not asked to sell all his wealth and give it to the poor.  I wonder why?  I heard one speculation, that the young man needed to because he was too attached to his wealth, whereas if Joseph did so, he would regret only that he didn't have more to give. 

Nevermind. I'm just rambling. 

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

40 million a year to the poor and the needy sounds silly in light of this stuff.

Why?

Somewhere we got the mistaken idea that the Church's main function is charitable giving.  It's not, although it is a principle of the Church and gospel.

But we aren't the Red Cross or the Salvation Army.  We help the poor and needy, but the restored doctrines and ordinances and spreading them should always be priority one.

In fact, most admonition in modern scriptures to help the poor specifically refers to members. Not to the world at large.

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, 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.
 

From whence comes this "right?" Besides basic human rights, essentially all other "rights" in our society are determined by our laws which create these rights. Are you asserting that the Church is not following some law granting this right? I hardly think the right to know rises to the level of a basic human right to be treated as we would like to be treated. So without a law, it seems to me there is no actual "right to know" here.  Indeed, it could be argued that corporations have a right to privacy, which you are helping to break. Unless the "stockholders" of a company ie the owners, demand disclosure, our laws usually don't demand it. Your belief that the general public has a right to know the finances of essentially a privately held company is apparently not shared by many who are members of that company. Their expectations as a collective body rule over your personal expectations of your "rights" in this case - at least imho. 

As for the disclosure I believe there a couple of things to note. I believe the Church once, and may still believe, the day is coming when the survival of the United States as we know it will fall on its shoulders. It believes the US has adopted practices of profligate and wasteful spending, and therefore wishes to be able to help its members in times of trouble. Such help entails providing food and provisions for its members in the event of social collapse. So, the Church began acquiring the means to provide such assistance should it be called upon to do so. This meant buying ranches, farms, dairies and other essential producers and services. The Church uses some of these products constantly in its welfare program to assist those in need. Once these were sufficiently acquired to ensure a food supply in time of trouble, the Church began to look elsewhere for investment of unused donations. I don't see investment in general stocks as as sound an investment in self-reliance as actually buying food sources, but it is a generally accepted short-term vehicle of investment. As to what the Church should be doing with its money, that is a matter for the Church to decide. I personally, do not feel the Church is meeting all its responsibilities under its law, but in the vast majority of cases it currently is. Should the Church get involved in homeless shelters, hospitals, and such? Maybe. Perhaps, members interested in doing those types of things should consider seeking Church sponsorship. I am sure there are places in the world where such services are needed, and would be helpful. Right now it seems Catholics are more known for that. I know where I grew up what was usually considered the best local hospital was run by Catholics. Also, some of the best local schools. I owe much of my otherwise pathetic knowledge of grammar to a Catholic priest.

It seems that instead the Church has focused on money-making ventures. Stock assets are assets that may simply dry up in times of trouble, so I believe the Church should think about limiting its exposure there. There was a time when the Lord directed the Church to buy certain lands to build up Zion. I believe that time is fast approaching, nevertheless, I am not in favor of spending fortunes to buy properties from other churches, which I believe may simply come into the fold of the Church. Nevertheless, the time is coming when the world-wide nature of the Church may become more centralized in Zion. I don't think it would be unwise to start preparing to build the New Jerusalem. This will take financial wherewithal. Although the US is rich in natural gas, I believe it also prudent to prepare other new sources of energy. The US Dept of Energy has totally missed the boat here imho.  There will be a lot to be done. This may include opportunities for the Saints to start afresh, and return to principles of a united order. The Hutterites seem to have had some success at that. Perhaps they can teach us a thing or two. 

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

Yes. On May 22, the church disclosed in a press release that it has investment reserves consisting of stocks, bonds, and other assets. Addressing the question, "Where does the money for the Church’s reserves come from?", it said, "the vast majority of Church operations are funded through the sacred tithes and offerings given by members. The Church operates within its means and sets aside a portion of its funds each year." So yes, that constitutes evidence that a portion of the tithing it receives every year is invested in the stock market. 

Where else should they put it?  Under President Nelson's mattress?  In a money pit under the floor of the Tabernacle?  Or convert it to gold bars and keep it in the basement of the Alamo?

[smac97]

55 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I hope you see the irony that you are the one who, at least on this thread, introduced all of the guesswork.

For illustrative purposes, yes.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

As to the 32 billion figure - I highly doubt that accounts for tithing donations.  32 billion only equates to 2 thousand dollars/member, with 16 million members.  That just is not that much money considering that members are expected to pay 10% of their income to the church!  Granted, not all members are full tithe payers, and most members live in more developing countries with lower incomes, but I would still expect to see much higher reserves then that with tithing money alone, not accounting for all of the successful business enterprises of the church.  I am guessing the 32 billion is only accounting for those church business earnings and not tithing dollars.  

Thinking about the numbers more critically, there are 6.6M members in the USA and I've heard people estimate about 33% activity rate, so thats 2.2M active, and then less than that would be full tithing payers.  Reading some of the data from Mike Quinn's book about other countries like Canada and the United Kingdom being subsidized by the members in the USA, I'm thinking the vast majority of the tithing dollars comes from those 2.2M active members in the USA.  

[Exiled]

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Well, it just shows how we operate today is very different than the early Christians.  

As for asking the poor for tithing, I'm not aware of any different policies with respect to how the poor are asked to give tithing by church leaders and in conference talks and official correlated LDS teachings today, although I am aware of some different language in the past.  If you are aware of something, please share.  

Didn't President Nelson recently make the questionable claim that paying tithing will lift the poor Africans out of poverty? https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900016023/dowry-is-not-the-lords-way-in-kenya-lds-president-nelson-says-tithing-breaks-poverty-cycle.html

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, Exiled said:

Didn't President Nelson recently make the questionable claim that paying tithing will lift the poor Africans out of poverty? https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900016023/dowry-is-not-the-lords-way-in-kenya-lds-president-nelson-says-tithing-breaks-poverty-cycle.html

Yeah, that was cringe worthy....  

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

So, if tithe players were to follow the guidance in Smac’s post, they should: invest their disposable income until such a time as they can afford to pay their tithing out of the interest earned off the principal. That would be constitute sound financial management and proper self-reliance.

Some people (not I), take their tithing and invest it during the year, and when tithing settlement comes, they liquidate the investments and pay their tithing.  I knew two people who did this.  I see nothing wrong with it.

Edited May 30, 2018 by Stargazer

[Storm Rider]

15 minutes ago, Exiled said:

What do you think the real reason is? For me, it just seems hypocritical to demand disclosure of membership earnings to the church through tithing and not reciprocate. Tithing is supposed to be 10% of your increase so the church has a rough idea of what the members are making but members don't have a clue about church finances. Also, it is a church and churches should act in the light.

You have lost me - who demands "disclosure of membership earnings"?  I have been a member for decades and not a single person has ever demanded to know what I made....ever.  The Church can make assumptions about what people make, they cannot "know" anything.  If I wanted to make some assumptions about the Church's finances there is nothing stopping me.  

Your logic is off on this point.  

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

It should be remembered that according to the Church, "the vast majority of its financial resources comes from the tithes and offerings of Church members."

This might be a tangent, but it necessarily only possible for a privileged few to "invest cash to generate interest, then live off the interest." The rest of us simply must work. The Church says it is doing nothing more than what it advises its members to do, but if we all saved money so we could then indefinitely live off of the interest, nobody would be working to produce the useful goods and services we need to survive. God may have been on to something when he said we should eat our bread by the sweat of our brow.

I don't think I would attempt to estimate the value of all the land and physical plant that the church possesses, but I'd bet that it was more than what is in the stock market.  However, as you well know, the value of a given asset only becomes a reality when it is sold. Until that time such things as real estate and physical plant is going to cost money.  The upkeep is not negligible. 

[provoman]

57 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said:

This board has always allowed occasional posters and as long as it doesn't break the other rules I see no problem with it.  The purpose of this board is to discuss topics relevant to Mormonism.  It's going to get discussed one way or the other.  

Phaedrus 

yes this board is for discussion. Yet fearlessfixxer has not discussed the topic. He spammed reddit and this board with this information then scurried away.

Driveby sensationalism is what I am opposed to.

[Gray]

27 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Yeah...  now who was it who complained to Jesus about the alabaster container of spikenard being sold and given to the poor?

Nevermind. You know what happens when you take all your assets and give them to the poor?  When the poor have finished consuming them, you don't have any more to give.  But the earnings from those assets, if retained and properly managed, means that one can continue to help the poor.

I notice that people like Bill Gates and his rich friends keep their money, but put it into trusts that benefit humanity in general.  Do we gripe about how rich they are, or praise them for using their assets to help people?

Why don't you sell all you own and give it to the poor?  Jesus asked the young rich man to do that, but he wouldn't do it.  On the other hand, Joseph of Arimathea was apparently not asked to sell all his wealth and give it to the poor.  I wonder why?  I heard one speculation, that the young man needed to because he was too attached to his wealth, whereas if Joseph did so, he would regret only that he didn't have more to give. 

Nevermind. I'm just rambling. 

I think the criticism isn't that the church is rich, it's that its humanitarian expenditures are very low compared to what they take in. Given the wealth of the church, one would expect humanitarian efforts to represent a larger proportion of spending.

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think the criticism isn't that the church is rich, it's that its humanitarian expenditures are very low compared to what they take in. Given the wealth of the church, one would expect humanitarian efforts to represent a larger proportion of spending.

Do we know how much of the church's wealth is liquid?

 

[Gray]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Do we know how much of the church's wealth is liquid?

 

No, I don't think so. There are estimates of yearly tithing income (which would be liquid), but I would guess a large portion of the church's assets are not in cash.

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, Gray said:

No, I don't think so. There are estimates of yearly tithing income (which would be liquid), but I would guess a large portion of the church's assets are not in cash.

Before we can criticize the church for the amount of money it spends on humanitarian aid compared to how much money it has, we would need to know how much of it's money is actually liquid and what it's annual expenses are compared to what it 'earns' annually.

Billions or millions of dollars in tithes and offerings don't mean anything if the church has billions or millions of dollars in bills.   Being worth billions or millions doesn't mean anything (in regards to what the church can spend on humanitarian aid each year) if that worth isn't liquid.

 

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, 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
 

My friend S. Heber Young has slipped me some rumors that the Church has a substantial stash of agarwood oud oil in another granite vault someplace up near Snowbird Ski Resort. Also, that there is a lot of money bound up in the General Authority Yacht Club's boats and facilities on Antelope Island, the exclusive 36-hole Mahonri Moriancumer Golf Club just south of Hurricane, the private airstrip that houses their fleet of 25 Bombardier Global Express private jets, and the hidden garage under Temple Square where they park their personal Lamborghini Aventador stretch limos.

If the Brethren were truly transparent and equitable, those assets would be disclosed in the General Conference financial report and made available to Relief Society leaders and youth groups.

Would you please check out these rumors for me? You seem to have really good sources. S. Heber is not always reliable. 

Edited May 30, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[rockpond]

To put the numbers in perspective...

$32 billion at a 6% return per year (that's conservative) would give you $1.92 billion in annual investment income.

$40 million per year donated to humanitarian aid represents just 2% of only the income produced by the Church's stock market holdings.