The Church has $32 Billion in the Stock Market

[JAHS]

18 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Matthew 6:24-34 comes to mind:

24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

27 Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?

28 And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:

29 And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.

30 Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?

31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?

32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.

33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

Matthew 19:21 also comes to mind:

21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

The church serves only one master but in order for the church to survive and grow in this world today and prepare for the future it has to be wise with its resources, which includes saving and investing.

Wealth gained hastily will dwindle, but whoever gathers little by little will increase it.  (Proverbs 13:11)
A slack hand causes poverty, but the hand of the diligent makes rich. He who gathers in summer is a prudent son, but he who sleeps in harvest is a son who brings shame. (Prov 10: 45)

[Benjamin Seeker]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

As a bishop and ward clerk, it was made clear that any monkey business with funds would result in loss of membership and maybe prosecution. We were audited regularly. Do you have any evidence higher officials or our business entities are treated any differently?

I’m not making an accusation, though I am suggesting added transparency wouldn’t hurt in that area.

Fallibility of the organization is much more open to critique, and there have been a number of valid questions in that regard raised on this thread. 

 

[Analytics]

2 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

So you want the church to sell all its liquid assets and hand it all out to the poor?  What will they do after that?  

As for the rest of it, do you really think the Lord was counseling his followers to "take no thought" for all that, just have everyone wear sackcloth and go about as mendicants?  Not even he did that.  

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.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

I don't fault any organization or activity for being subsidized, including the LDS Church.

So you consider yourself "subsidized," correct?

Quote

All I'm doing is taking a clear-headed approach and calling a subsidy what it is. There is nothing wrong with taking a tax break, but as citizens, we ought to recognize what they are.

Okay.  I think there is a flaw in equating utilization of the tax code with "subsidization," particularly since everyone does this.  

By your reasoning, every tax deduction is "a subsidy."  Every tax-advantaged transaction is a "subsidy."  Every tax credit is a "subsidy."  But the only time I hear about this sort of thing is when the LDS Church is in the crosshairs.

This characterization of yours sure does come across as a criticism.  As rhetoric designed to stoke resentments against the LDS Church because everyone else is involuntarily "subsidizing" it.

Quote

My point is to look at the implications of the tax code with a clear head. It is clearer to say, "the interest I pay on my mortgage is subsidized" than it is to say, I am subsidized.

That's a mighty fine hair to split.  The money you save by itemizing tax deductions is your money.  "No, I'm not being subsidized when I utilize the tax code to my advantage, my bank account is" doesn't really make a great deal of sense.

Quote

As a society, do we want to subsidize the interest on home loans? Why do we want to subsidize this type of debt? Those are fair and important questions to ask. But if somebody tries to argue that home interest deductions aren't a subsidy, they are uneducated, obtuse, or are deliberately obfuscating the issue for political purposes.

But your reasoning is reductionist.  Virtually every tax-paying individual and organization uses the tax code to reduce their tax obligations.  That's pretty much every taxpayer in the country.  To characterize each and every such tax-saving or tax-reducing decision a "subsidy" seems a bit absurd.

Quote

Yes, you are wrong. On this point I haven't criticized the LDS Church at all. Not an iota.

Then what is the point of talking about supposed "subsidization" of the LDS Church, if not to find fault and stoke resentments?  Particularly given that every tax-saving or tax-reducing decision by every taxpaying individual or organization can also be characterized as a "subsidy"?

Quote

I criticize them for not being transparent, but I don't fault them for the tax treatment they receive.

Hmm.  You seemed to be tying the two concepts (subsidization and transparency) together here:

Quote

Quote

What right do you have to decide that someone or some organization other thsn yourself should be transparent?  People and organizations have a right to privacy.

Because taxpayers give the Church subsidies through various tax breaks, taxpayers have a reasonable expectation of transparency.

You are presenting your claims about "subsidies" in order to bolster your criticisms of the LDS Church about "transparency."  The existence of the former justifies the latter.

So let's apply your reasoning to yourself.  You admit to using the tax code to reduce your tax obligations.  You are therefore being "subsidized" by others, including me.  Therefore, I have - by your reasoning - "a reasonable expectation of transparency" from you about your personal finances.  Correct?

If the LDS Church is obligated to be more "transparent" than the law requires because it is being "subsidized" by others, and if you too are being "subsidized" by others, then you bear that same obligation, right?  

So when can we expect you to upload your financials?  "Sauce for the goose" and all that?

Of course, I do not expect anything of the sort from you.  Because I dont' really buy into the thesis that "taxpayers" are entitled to "transparency" from Analytics because they are "subsidizing" Analytics because he uses lawful means to reduce his tax obligations.

But if I don't buy into this thesis as applied to Analytics, then why should I buy into it as applied to the LDS Church?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 30, 2018 by smac97

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Again, so what?

Why is it a function of the Church to give to charitable services?  

And I'd wager they do far more to help the poor and needy internally - how many ward members get aid from the Bishop that doesn't register as charitable giving on the financial portfolios?

I'd wonder....for sure.  Does the Church give anything to these poor and needy in many wards or do ward members donating fast offerings?  

If its a so what...great.  But then boasting about giving to humanitarian causes and talking as if doing so is a high priority seems silly.  Full circle huh?  We started this out by me sayhing it sounded silly.  

[JAHS]

3 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I’m not making an accusation, though I am suggesting added transparency wouldn’t hurt in that area.

Fallibility of the organization is much more open to critique, and there have been a number of valid questions in that regard raised on this thread. 

 

This depends a lot on just who is raising these "valid questions". 
Certainly not me or most any other faithful church member.
It is mostly the church critics who critique.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, provoman said:

 

How about a group vote to block your posting on this board? I normally would never suggest such a thing, but for you I am willing to suggest it. 

I suggest it because you do not engage in dialogue or discussion. Your posts are only to drive traffic to your website. If your contributions were more than drive posting to drive traffic to your website, my thoughts would be different.

If everyone who feels this way reports him, the mods will definitely get the message.  I have already based on the guideline below:

Quote

BANNED BEHAVIORS include but are not limited to:
• Spamming or advertising products, publications, or websites

 

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not "opposed" to anything except that I object to meddlesome busybodies with no stake in the Church's finances presuming to publicly tell the Church what to do, then publicly faulting the Church for not hopping to.

You're not opposed to anything, except you're going to call those of us who want more transparency "meddlesome busybodies with not stake in the Church's finances presuming to publicly tell the church what then publicly faulting the Church for not hopping to."  

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Apart from the requirements of secular law (which the Church inarguably follows), the level of "transparency" the Church provides is a judgment call. 

Yes, and from the judgment of us "busybodies" we judge the church's current financial disclosures as lacking.  

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I sustain the leaders of the Church in their well-exercised discretionary decisions, whatever those decisions are.  So in that sense, yes, "allegiance" to the Church and its reasonable practices is more important to me than any arbitrary, ad hoc, let's-calibrate-our-demands-to-any-way-that-makes-the-LDS-Church-look-bad standards of "transparency" spouted by do-what-I-want-because-I-say-so faultfinders.

I get this orientation.  Its a prioritization of sorts.  What do you value most, obedience and allegiance.  But speaking for myself, I have a different set of values, and from my perspective allegiance isn't always agreeing with church leaders.   Its allegiance to principles that I believe are bigger and more important that the opinions of any individual.  I also have an allegiance to reason and arguing out the best justification to support a practice.  I haven't seen reasoning that convinces me that the church's current practice is the best practice in our modern society or that it aligns to any core principles that need to be defended and supported. 

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Thinking said:

 

The disclaimer on the donation slip allows the Church to do whatever it wants with donations.

Even with this disclaimer there seems to be a need to proclaim that tithing funds weren't used for this or that. The existence of the disclaimer suggests that all the money is really just put into one big pot.

This may have been mentioned, but the Church has closed online donation to the PEF and TPA funds due to having received enough donations to cover them, which they likely wouldn't do if everything is treated as if " one big pot".  Something that attracted more donations than needed would be used to fund others that were weaker in appeal.

Edited May 30, 2018 by Calm

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

1- I would hope so to. And since we don't have any way to review the finances, hope is all we have  

We have the annual report from the Church.  

We have (or can have) a presumption that this report is correct and accurate.

We also have the evidence that the General Authorities, who have the means to enrich themselves by accessing the Church's substantial wealth, are not doing this.  Instead, they lead fairly modest (though still comfortable) lives.  Many of them take a substantial pay cut when they become a GA.  For example, my father's cousin is Stanley G. Ellis.  He is currently serving as a member of the Africa Southeast Area Presidency.  He went to Harvard, then got a law degree, then spent many years as something of a powerhouse attorney in Texas prior to becoming a General Authority (so says my father, his cousin).  I suspect he was doing better financially prior to becoming a General Authority.  My sister's father-in-law was a medical doctor before becoming a GA.  Again, I suspect his medical practic earned him more than his service as a GA.  Those who have access to the money are not accessing the money.  They aren't in it for the money.

We also have substantial evidence that the Church is spending its money (not our money, since it belongs to the donee, not the donor) on things like church buildings, temples, missionary work, education and humanitarian endeavors, and so on.

We also have D. Michael Quinn's book.

And so on.  We have a lot more than "hope."  We have good fruit.

17 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree that it may require some risk if the church's purpose and stewardship is primarily to grow its assets

Nope.  I didn't say that.  Nobody has.

Wise financial stewardship is a part of the Church's mission.  That's one of the things we are taught in the Parable of the Talents.

17 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

but I wouldn't concede that that should be its purpose and stewardship.

Nobody is asking for such a concession.

17 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You're right that the church seems to be preserving the 5 talents, but we don't really know how that has played out with its financial investments over the last decade. Is it possible the church now only has 4 talents because of stock market losses?

By all accounts, the Church's management of its finances has been excellent.

17 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

2- Past losses may be made up in the long run OR there could be increased losses. It's a risk. It might be a good risk based on total assets or it may be a bad one. We have no way of knowing since that information isn't shared.

And since it really isn't within our stewardship, I don't see the problem.

Again, by all accounts, the Church's management of its finances has been excellent.

17 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But instead of thinking of the church's primary role as increasing its financial strength, either by investing in stocks or by parking the "funds in the bank",

Again, nobody is saying this is "the church's primary role."

Nobody.

17 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

perhaps we should give more consideration to the opportunity costs of not doing good with the money now verses hoping to do more good in the future.

That doesn't seem to be within our stewardship.

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Then let the people who funded the organization deal with it.  Those who haven't funded anything can mind their own business.  

Except every tax payer is subsidizing the churches through the tax exempt status that they have.  This makes every tax payer a stakeholder with an interest on this topic.  This has been part of the argument for transparency.  

[Calm]

6 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Yay!  A detailed spreadsheet on the leaks page!  I loves me some good spreadsheet. 

[data crunching noises]

Ok.  So, I'm hearing there's good reason to believe these 13 companies are owned by the church.  I am seeing dollar amounts on the value of these companies.  The implication is there is these companies handle money for only one entity - the church.  I'm not seeing evidence this is the case, just the implication.  It may or may not be correct. 

It's fun to see some of the companies these funds invest in.  Not fun as in interesting, but fun as in "people who freak out about such things will find lots of things to freak out about here".  Tech stocks like Apple and Facebook and Yahoo.  Haliburton. Monsanto.  WalMart.  Equifax and TransUnion.  Wells Fargo! (lol).   Lockheed Martin and Boeing.

The Cheesecake Factory - if it's good enough for the church to own stock in it, it must be good enough to eat at.

My employer.  Yay!  I work for a company invested in by my church!

Absolute hands-down favorite: Hasbro, makers of My Little Pony, and Lions Gate Entertainment, who did the recent My Little Pony movie.  That can only mean one thing:  In a few General Conferences, the church will announce the first missionaries in Equestria.

 

You need to post more.

I am never going to be able to look at that picture again without cracking up.

Edited May 30, 2018 by Calm

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

You're not opposed to anything, except you're going to call those of us who want more transparency "meddlesome busybodies with not stake in the Church's finances presuming to publicly tell the church what then publicly faulting the Church for not hopping to."  

If the shoe fits...

If you were to show up at my door and demand to see my financials, I would consider you a meddlesome busybody.  My family's finances are not within your stewardship.  You have no stake my my family's finances.

And if you were to publicly criticize me for not kowtowing to your meddlesome demands of "transparency," I would take exception to that.

Quote

I get this orientation.  Its a prioritization of sorts.  What do you value most, obedience and allegiance. 

I really respect and admire the Church.  I want to support it, not tear it down.  I want to advance its objectives, not publicly find fault with them.  I want others to join it.  I do not want to try to make it look bad.  I do not want to impose my because-I-say-so preferences on it, particularly when those preferences pertain to matters far outside my stewardship.

Quote

But speaking for myself, I have a different set of values, and from my perspective allegiance isn't always agreeing with church leaders.

I agree with that.  But nor is constantly speaking against and criticizing them in public.

Quote

Its allegiance to principles that I believe are bigger and more important that the opinions of any individual.  I also have an allegiance to reason and arguing out the best justification to support a practice.  I haven't seen reasoning that convinces me that the church's current practice is the best practice in our modern society or that it aligns to any core principles that need to be defended and supported. 

As you like.  I have seen no evidence that the Church is a poor steward of its finances.  To the contrary, all evidence suggests that it is an excellent steward.

The Church ain't perfect.  I've never been a huge fan of the Scouting Program, and I'm glad that we are getting rid of it.  But while it was with us, I have participated in it and supported it.  Sustaining the leaders of the Church has to mean something, after all.  "Yes, I support the Brethren, but only when they do exactly what I want 'em to, otherwise forget it" isn't a winning formula for me.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 30, 2018 by smac97

[strappinglad]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Does it make you wonder how much money the church lost in the 2008 stock market? Would it shock/disturb you if you found out the church lost $50 million dollars in the stock market over the course of a couple of years? Who would be to blame? No one, because you'd never know about it.

I don't know how much the church lost in 2008 but I bet it was substantial. I wonder if the church has recouped all of its losses in the past decade or if that $32 billion is still down from what it once was. 

Maybe the Church followed the lead of Charlie Chaplin wherein he divested from the market shortly before the 1929 crash. After the crash he was able to purchase stocks at a serious discount. Then again perhaps they followed my market strategy which is buy high and sell low.

[kllindley]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Except every tax payer is subsidizing the churches through the tax exempt status that they have.  This makes every tax payer a stakeholder with an interest on this topic.  This has been part of the argument for transparency.  

And that interest is satisfied by the legal reporting requirements that the Church does fulfill. 

Unless you also require the same level of transparency of every individual being subsidized through tax exemptions, this is hypocritical. 

[Benjamin Seeker]

40 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Again, so what?

Why is it a function of the Church to give to charitable services?  

And I'd wager they do far more to help the poor and needy internally - how many ward members get aid from the Bishop that doesn't register as charitable giving on the financial portfolios?

JHL, I’m bringing this up to you because I know you love doctrine. Many of the earliest passages on tithing and consecration (JST & early revelations) specifically reference caring for the poor.

1830 - JST 14:38 “Him (Melchizedek) whom God had appointed to receive tithes for the poor.”

1832 - D&C 42:33 “And again, if there shall be properties in the hands of the church, or any individuals of it, more than is necessary for their support after this first consecration, which is a residue to be consecrated unto the bishop, it shall be kept to administer to those who have not, from time to time, that every man who has need may be amply supplied and receive according to his wants. 34 Therefore, the residue shall be kept in my storehouse, to administer to the poor and the needy, as shall be appointed by the high council of the church, and the bishop and his council;
35 And for the purpose of purchasing lands for the public benefit of the church, and building houses of worship, and building up of the New Jerusalem which is hereafter to be revealed--“

According to the revelation consecrated resources are to serve two purposes: 1. help the poor and 2. buy land and build stuff.

From the beginning, tithes and offerings were understood as a way to care for the poor and “those who have not.” How much emphasis you place on that directive and whether it’s only meant to be internal vs. external is up for interpretation, but it’s canonical derivation isn’t.

 

 

 

Edited May 30, 2018 by Benjamin Seeker

[Avatar4321]

9 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
 

32 billion in a mutual fund averaging 12% a year is nearly $2 billion more per year.

Its not a bad investment. 

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

If the shoe fits...

If you were to show up at my door and demand to see my financials, I would consider you a meddlesome busybody.  My family's finances are now within your stewardship.  You have no stake my my family's finances.

And if you were to publicly criticize me for not kowtowing to your meddlesome demands of "transparency," I would take exception to that.

Your comparison to me asking for your personal finances didn't work the first time you gave it and to be a completely irrelevant comparison.  I'm a stakeholder in the church's finances by personally donating money directly and indirectly as a tax payer since they receive subsidized tax exempt status.  

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I really respect and admire the Church.  I want to support it, not tear it down.  I want to advance its objectives, not publicly find fault with them.  I want others to join it.  I do not want to try to make it look bad.  I do not want to impose my because-I-say-so preferences on it, particularly when those preferences pertain to matters far outside my stewardship.

Thats fine and I'm not tearing the church down or attempting to do so.  I think financial transparency would not only benefit the members and society but would benefit the church as well.  Your assumption that it would hurt more than help is speculation on your part.   Sometimes publicly finding fault with poor practices actually is a good thing, and can help an institution to right their ship and get more healthy.  

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I agree with that.  But nor is constantly speaking against and criticizing them in public.

I don't know of anyone who is "constantly speaking against and criticizing the church in public" on this message board.  This shoe doesn't fit either.  

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As you like.  I have seen no evidence that the Church is a poor steward of its finances.  To the contrary, all evidence suggests that it is an excellent steward.

The evidence is clear to me, and I think I understand why you don't agree with it.  No matter, I'm not going to call you names or attempt to paint you in bad faith just because I disagree with your perspective.  

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Yes, I support the Brethren, but only when they do exactly what I want 'em to, otherwise forget it" isn't a winning formula for me.

This is another shoe that doesn't fit.  Taking an extreme and then arguing against the extreme. 

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, kllindley said:

And that interest is satisfied by the legal reporting requirements that the Church does fulfill. 

Unless you also require the same level of transparency of every individual being subsidized through tax exemptions, this is hypocritical. 

Churches are exempt from the same financial reporting requirements of other charitable organizations.  I think this ought to change, and I would support legislation to require more transparency from churches than what we have today in the USA.  

Its not hypocritical, there are many rules and laws that apply very differently for individuals and institutions.  The public doesn't have an interest in knowing the personal finances of every individual, but the public does have some interest in knowing more about large institutions, and the members of those institutions have an interest as well.  This comparison between individuals and large institutions doesn't make any sense to me.  

[Analytics]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

By your reasoning, every tax deduction is "a subsidy."  Every tax-advantaged transaction is a "subsidy."  Every tax credit is a "subsidy."  But the only time I hear about this sort of thing is when the LDS Church is in the crosshairs.

I'm guessing you don't spend much time in your professional or personal life talking about tax policy, do you?

My views on what tax subsidizations are and why tax exempt organizations and churches ought to be transparent are mainstream positions and really aren't controversial (at least among people who aren't apologists for prosperity preachers).

You really don't need to die on this hill.

 

[kllindley]

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Churches are exempt from the same financial reporting requirements of other charitable organizations.  I think this ought to change, and I would support legislation to require more transparency from churches than what we have today in the USA.  

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

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

[Calm]

 

5 hours ago, Gray said:

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.

Mormonleaks started out as MormonWikiLeaks until they were threatened/sued? byWikileaks for trademark issues, iirc. (The below states McKnight intended to keep the name even after Wikileaks told him to take it down, my memory says Wikileaks became more forceful in their 'request '.)

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/former-church-member-launches-mormon-wikileaks-a7487536.html

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

If I gave you $100, no strings attached, would I have a right to know how you spent it?  A right?

Not if I don't require you to give me a hundred dollars.😋

Edited May 30, 2018 by Jeanne

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, kllindley said:

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

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

I haven’t heard anyone anywhere calling for Stake and Ward level financial transparency, where did you get that from?  

I’d start with looking at the financial disclosures required for churches in other countries like the UK or Canada.  

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

And if the market went south, who would catch the blame?  I imagine the church's investments are just as subject to the vagaries of the market as yours and mine are.

How true..!  I am not playing with anybody's money but my own.