Dan Peterson's Series on Church Finances and "Transparency"

[smac97]

Dr. Daniel Peterson has been publishing a thoughtful series on the Church's finances and critiques of the Church's "transparency" or purported lack/insufficiency thereof:

• LDS Inc. (Part One)
• LDS Inc. (Part Two)
• LDS Inc. (Part Three)
• LDS Inc. (Part Four)
• LDS Inc. (Part Five)
• LDS Inc. (Part Six)
• LDS Inc. (Part Seven)
• LDS Inc. (Part Eight)
• LDS Inc. (Part Nine)
• LDS Inc. (Part Ten)
• LDS Inc. (Part Eleven)

Dr. P makes some pretty good points, some of which we have discussed here.  I'm hoping you folks will read them and post your thoughts/observations/responses.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 11, 2019 by smac97

[rockpond]

Quotes below from Dan Peterson's part one.  There is a lot there so I have to take it a bit at a time:

Quote

The so-called “Church,” which, in this context, many of them like to call “LDS Inc” or “the Corporation,” isn’t really about religious faith, isn’t really a church, at all.  Rather, it is a business.  It’s much more concerned about money than it is about souls.

While many are critical of how the church handles it finances or claim that they church may act too much like a corporation, I have seen very few critics who believe the Church "isn't really about religious faith".

Peterson then cites the miracles of feeding the multitude and explains that Christ used his divine powers to provide food for large events.  He seems to want to relate this to the opening of City Creek Center.  I don't get the connection, maybe someone can help me see it.  The feeding of the multitude was an act of compassion and a teaching moment.  Is City Creek Center an act of compassion by the church?  A teaching moment?

And then Peterson refers to Jesus instructing Peter to go out and let down his nets.  Peter and the apostles catch so many fish that they can barely pull in the nets.  He characterizes this miracle as "advising Galilean fisherman on how to increase their harvest of tilapia".  His description of what happened is wholly inaccurate - no advice was given (they already knew that they had to let down their net to catch fish) and the miracle was used as an object lesson to teach and give a charge to the apostles.

 

I'll jump on part two when I have some spare time.

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Quotes below from Dan Peterson's part one.  There is a lot there so I have to take it a bit at a time:

While many are critical of how the church handles it finances or claim that they church may act too much like a corporation, I have seen very few critics who believe the Church "isn't really about religious faith".

Really?  I have seen this claim many, many times.

Quote

Peterson then cites the miracles of feeding the multitude and explains that Christ used his divine powers to provide food for large events.  He seems to want to relate this to the opening of City Creek Center.  I don't get the connection, maybe someone can help me see it. 

Here's the part of that entry:

Quote

{Critics] love to point to the late President Thomas S. Monson cutting the ribbon for the shopping space at City Creek and saying “One, two, three. . . Let’s go shopping!”  Is it not true, some will point out, that Latter-day Saint prophets and apostles have sometimes even dedicated banks?  Banks!  They have prayed at the opening of banks!

These critics are evidently not disturbed by accounts of Jesus using his divine powers to provide food for large events (at Matthew 14:13-21, Matthew 15:32-39, Mark 6:31-44, Mark 8:1-9, Luke 9:12-17, John 6:1-14, and Matthew 15:32-39) and advising Galilean fisherman on how to increase their harvest of tilapia (as at Luke 5:1-11 and John 21:1-14).

Presumably, Semitic peasants catching fish for a living are spiritual in a way that middle class gringos selling shoes or iPhones can never hope to be.

Catholic priests in foreign countries praying over the fishing fleet at the opening of the season are quaint and cute.  General Authorities praying over a bank, though, are offensive and gross.  Why?  Perhaps because, from the standpoint of alienated middle class American ex-Latter-day Saints, banks and retail stores aren’t sufficiently exotic.  Scriptural flocks and fields, though?  They’re far away in time and place and, thus, presumably acceptable:

Cry unto him when ye are in your fields, yea, over all your flocks.  Cry unto him in your houses, yea, over all your household, both morning, mid-day, and evening. . . .  Cry unto him over the crops of your fields, that ye may prosper in them.  Cry over the flocks of your fields, that they may increase.    (Alma 34:20-21, 24-25)

The Church, complain some of its critics, spends far more money on malls and stocks than on humanitarian assistance to the needy.

But this complaint, it seems to me, rests on a fallacy of equivocation as well as on a basic misunderstanding of finance and economics.

Was it wrong for Jesus to help "Galilean fisherman on how to increase their harvest of tilapia?"  They were doing so for economic reasons, after all.

Quote

The feeding of the multitude was an act of compassion and a teaching moment.  Is City Creek Center an act of compassion by the church?  A teaching moment?

City Creek can be seen as an application of the Parable of the Talents in Matthew 25.  I wonder if DCP had this in mind when he said this: "Semitic peasants catching fish for a living are spiritual in a way that middle class gringos selling shoes or iPhones can never hope to be."

He was being ironic, but do you see his point?  That there is nothing wrong with seeking God's help in our mortal endeavors?  If the ancients could pray over their economic efforts (flocks and fields), why can't we do the same with our economic efforts (in this case, "selling shoes or iPhones")?

Quote

And then Peterson refers to Jesus instructing Peter to go out and let down his nets.  Peter and the apostles catch so many fish that they can barely pull in the nets.  He characterizes this miracle as "advising Galilean fisherman on how to increase their harvest of tilapia".  His description of what happened is wholly inaccurate - no advice was given (they already knew that they had to let down their net to catch fish) and the miracle was used as an object lesson to teach and give a charge to the apostles.

DCP's description was quite accurate.  Let's take a look at Luke 5:

Quote

1 And it came to pass, that, as the people pressed upon him to hear the word of God, he stood by the lake of Gennesaret,
2 And saw two ships standing by the lake: but the fishermen were gone out of them, and were washing their nets.
3 And he entered into one of the ships, which was Simon’s, and prayed him that he would thrust out a little from the land. And he sat down, and taught the people out of the ship.
4 Now when he had left speaking, he said unto Simon, Launch out into the deep, and let down your nets for a draught.
5 And Simon answering said unto him, Master, we have toiled all the night, and have taken nothing: nevertheless at thy word I will let down the net.
6 And when they had this done, they inclosed a great multitude of fishes: and their net brake.
7 And they beckoned unto their partners, which were in the other ship, that they should come and help them. And they came, and filled both the ships, so that they began to sink.
8 When Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying, Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord.
9 For he was astonished, and all that were with him, at the draught of the fishes which they had taken:
10 And so was also James, and John, the sons of Zebedee, which were partners with Simon. And Jesus said unto Simon, Fear not; from henceforth thou shalt catch men.
11 And when they had brought their ships to land, they forsook all, and followed him.

They were not having success in their (economic) efforts, Jesus helped them in those efforts.

And yes, His words were clearly "an object lesson."  They were also metaphorical.  But they were also practical  They caught fish, whereas previously they had failed at catching fish.

Quote

I'll jump on part two when I have some spare time.

Okay.

I've never really understood the seeming revulsion that some (perhaps including you?) have at the idea that God could help us in our business endeavors.  Such efforts are, after all, but a means to an end.  The Lord's Church needs members.  Members need to make a living to provide for themselves and their families, and also to have means to pay tithes and offerings, to have time to serve in the Church and elsewhere, and so on.  Meeting these familial and donative and service obligations requires members to . . . work.  To make money.

For some very few, the Lord requires their full-time services (such as the apostles in the New Testament, and the General Authorities in our day).  However, the rest of us are expected - commanded, even - to work and provide for ourselves and others.  It is therefore appropriate that we seek God's help in such endeavors, whether they pertain to flocks and fields, or shoes and iPhones.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 11, 2019 by smac97

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I have seen very few critics who believe the Church "isn't really about religious faith".

Serious critics, I would agree.  Ones who hang out on some anti sites to trash the Church, seen a goodly percentage taking that approach towards the motivation of upper leadership or even typical membership imo.  Rather than religious faith, it is a need for conformity, power hunger, and other less noble motivations that are seen as the dominant drive.  Frequents usage of TSSC for The So-Called Church is often an indicator of this view.

Edited December 11, 2019 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Dr. Daniel Peterson has been publishing a thoughtful series on the Church's finances and critiques of the Church's "transparency" or purported lack/insufficiency thereof:

• LDS Inc. (Part One)
• LDS Inc. (Part Two)
• LDS Inc. (Part Three)
• LDS Inc. (Part Four)
• LDS Inc. (Part Five)
• LDS Inc. (Part Six)
• LDS Inc. (Part Seven)
• LDS Inc. (Part Eight)
• LDS Inc. (Part Nine)
• LDS Inc. (Part Ten)
• LDS Inc. (Part Eleven)

Dr. P makes some pretty good points, some of which we have discussed here.  I'm hoping you folks will read them and post your thoughts/observations/responses.

Thanks,

-Smac

I’ve read some of these parts, but it’s nice to have the links all in one place. Thanks for compiling them. 

[pogi]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Dr. Daniel Peterson has been publishing a thoughtful series on the Church's finances and critiques of the Church's "transparency" or purported lack/insufficiency thereof:

For those interested, he only discusses transparency in parts 7-9.  

I generally like and agree with all of these posts and it appears I am not alone in my desire to have the church become more transparent as Dr Peterson noted:

Quote

I happen to know of a very senior Church leader, now deceased, who wanted to make Church finances more open.  For what little it’s worth, I would have supported that.

It appears my desire is not as "hostile" as some make it out to be as I stand in good and righteous company. 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

28 minutes ago, pogi said:

For those interested, he only discusses transparency in parts 7-9.  

I generally like and agree with all of these posts and it appears I am not alone in my desire to have the church become more transparent as Dr Peterson noted:

It appears my desire is not as "hostile" as some make it out to be as I stand in good and righteous company. 

 

It would have been more informative — if not more accurate — for you to have included some context with this quote as reflected in the following:

“I don’t know how far he would have gone, but I can certainly understand the inclination to open things up a bit.

 

“However, just for the record, let me say that I always feel really happy about paying my tithes.  The amounts that I donate are significant, by my standards, ... but I inevitably feel a warm glow after I’ve made my contributions and after I’ve finished with tithing settlement.  I like to think that I’m assisting, in my small way, with the construction of chapels and temples worldwide, backing educational efforts, helping to support missionaries, and so on and so forth.  I feel enormous satisfaction in being part of a great international work.  I take it very seriously.  To me, it is literally to be a participant in building the Kingdom of God on the earth.” 
 

So, while Dr. Peterson allows that he “would have supported” one deceased General Authority’s preference to “open things up a bit,” it is clear that he is not at all unhappy or malcontented with the status quo in this matter. 
 

Futthermore, we have no way of knowing from what has been related here what is meant by “a bit,” or whether you and others would have been satisfied with it. 

Edited December 11, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’ve read some of these parts, but it’s nice to have the links all in one place. Thanks for compiling them. 

I agree.  The Patheos "table of contents" of Peterson's posts doesn't really facilitate getting to all the parts easily.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Serious critics, I would agree.  Ones who hang out on some anti sites to trash the Church, seen a goodly percentage taking that approach towards the motivation of upper leadership or even typical membership imo.  Rather than religious faith, it is a need for conformity, power hunger, and other less noble motivations that are seen as the dominant drive.  Frequents usage of TSSC for The So-Called Church is often an indicator of this view.

Okay.  I guess I don't hang out enough (ever) on anti sites to know this.

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Was it wrong for Jesus to help "Galilean fisherman on how to increase their harvest of tilapia?"  They were doing so for economic reasons, after all.

No, it wasn't wrong for Jesus to help his apostles increase their harvest that day (through a miracle, not through advice on how to fish).  But to imply that he was somehow helping them for economic reasons misses the point of what the Lord was doing.  The conclusion of that miracle was Jesus telling the apostles to leave their secular career and go be fishers of men.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

City Creek can be seen as an application of the Parable of the Talents in Matthew 25.  I wonder if DCP had this in mind when he said this: "Semitic peasants catching fish for a living are spiritual in a way that middle class gringos selling shoes or iPhones can never hope to be."

The parable of the talents (and a couple other parables) would have been better comparisons, IMO, than Peterson's choice of the feeding(s) of the multitude.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

He was being ironic, but do you see his point?  That there is nothing wrong with seeking God's help in our mortal endeavors?  If the ancients could pray over their economic efforts (flocks and fields), why can't we do the same with our economic efforts (in this case, "selling shoes or iPhones")?

I agree that there is nothing wrong with seeking God's help in mortal and secular endeavors.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I've never really understood the seeming revulsion that some (perhaps including you?) have at the idea that God could help us in our business endeavors.

No, not including me.  I don't know anyone who has revulsion at the idea that God could help us in secular endeavors.  Nearly every morning in family prayer my children pray that they will do well at school and that I can do well at work.  Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Okay.  I guess I don't hang out enough (ever) on anti sites to know this.

I need to research things on occasion for answers for people who write into FM, so some exposure but no expert.  I don't spend that much time as I tend to avoid too negative sites (that includes some member sites, I am an equal opportunity avoidist).  This site has more than enough negativity to satisfy my quota.

[pogi]

44 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It would have been more informative — if not more accurate — for you to have included some context with this quote as reflected in the following:

“I don’t know how far he would have gone, but I can certainly understand the inclination to open things up a bit.

 

“However, just for the record, let me say that I always feel really happy about paying my tithes.  The amounts that I donate are significant, by my standards, ... but I inevitably feel a warm glow after I’ve made my contributions and after I’ve finished with tithing settlement.  I like to think that I’m assisting, in my small way, with the construction of chapels and temples worldwide, backing educational efforts, helping to support missionaries, and so on and so forth.  I feel enormous satisfaction in being part of a great international work.  I take it very seriously.  To me, it is literally to be a participant in building the Kingdom of God on the earth.” 
 

So, while Dr. Peterson allows that he “would have supported” one deceased General Authority’s preference to “open things up a bit,” it is clear that he is not at all unhappy or malcontented with the status quo in this matter. 
 

Futthermore, we have no way of knowing from what has been related here what is meant by “a bit,” or whether you and others would have been satisfied with it. 

For what it is worth, I too echo Dr. Peterson's sentiment in regards to paying tithing and how it makes me feel. 

What was communicated to Dr. Peterson by a "very senior Church leader" is that he wanted to make "Church finances more open."  That is my wish too.  Your further context doesn't change the fact that I stand in good company in wanting more transparency.

Edited December 11, 2019 by pogi

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

I need to research things on occasion for answers for people who write into FM, so some exposure but no expert.  I don't spend that much time as I tend to avoid too negative sites (that includes some member sites, I am an equal opportunity avoidist).  This site has more than enough negativity to satisfy my quota.

When a site, or forum, or social media group, etc tends to become an echo chamber (on either end of the spectrum) I tend to avoid it.  I feel like this forum still strikes a good balance, most of the time.  (I have my moments when I, regretfully, haven't helped.)

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

What was communicated to Dr. Peterson by a "very senior Church leader" is that he wanted to make "Church finances more open."  That is my wish too.  Your further context doesn't change the fact that I stand in good company in wanting more transparency.    

It's mine as well.  And I also enjoy paying tithing.

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

Serious critics, I would agree.  Ones who hang out on some anti sites to trash the Church, seen a goodly percentage taking that approach towards the motivation of upper leadership or even typical membership imo.  Rather than religious faith, it is a need for conformity, power hunger, and other less noble motivations that are seen as the dominant drive.  Frequents usage of TSSC for The So-Called Church is often an indicator of this view.

There are very few even-handed commentators on Mormonism from outside the Church.  There are plenty of ex-Mormons and anti-Mormon evangelicals who always assume the worst.  It is naive to think otherwise.  In fact, it is often directly from serious scholars who have left the Church that we get a fair shake -- and Mike Quinn is a prime example.

As to transparency, I perceive fear in the hearts of many leaders, which is one reason why it took so long for the Historical Dept of the Church to open up.  The same was true of the Roman Catholic "Index of Forbidden Books" (Index librorum prohibitorum), which was still in effect when I was young.  The RC Church finally gave up on that, but they have not yet given up on lack of transparency on their mismanagement of the the priest-molestation crisis (the Pope is still unwilling to find a solution).  Leaders just naturally find it distasteful to have anyone from the outside looking over their shoulders.  They are fallible people, quite capable of making wrong decisions, no matter how sincere they might be.

Dan's series raises the specter of demonstrations and loud objections to the facts which transparency would disclose, but I doubt that we would see anything like the chaos he suggests.  As Mike Quinn pointed out, it is actually "faith promoting."

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, pogi said:

For what it is worth, I too echo Dr. Peterson's sentiment in regards to paying tithing and how it makes me feel. 

What was communicated to Dr. Peterson by a "very senior Church leader" is that he wanted to make "Church finances more open."  That is my wish too.  Your further context doesn't change the fact that I stand in good company in wanting more transparency.

I think you may be jumping to conclusions about the extent to which this unnamed General Authority would have preferred to see the finances “more open.” 
 

My position is not all that different from Dr. Peterson’s. If the Church leaders were to announce tomorrow a policy change on this matter, I would support it. But unless and until that happens, I’m not going to advocate or agitate for it. Doesn’t sound like Professor Peterson is so inclined either, or, for that matter, that the unnamed and now deceased General Authority was either. 

Edited December 12, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There are very few even-handed commentators on Mormonism from outside the Church.  There are plenty of ex-Mormons and anti-Mormon evangelicals who always assume the worst.  It is naive to think otherwise.  In fact, it is often directly from serious scholars who have left the Church that we get a fair shake -- and Mike Quinn is a prime example.

As to transparency, I perceive fear in the hearts of many leaders, which is one reason why it took so long for the Historical Dept of the Church to open up.  The same was true of the Roman Catholic "Index of Forbidden Books" (Index librorum prohibitorum), which was still in effect when I was young.  The RC Church finally gave up on that, but they have not yet given up on lack of transparency on their mismanagement of the the priest-molestation crisis (the Pope is still unwilling to find a solution).  Leaders just naturally find it distasteful to have anyone from the outside looking over their shoulders.  They are fallible people, quite capable of making wrong decisions, no matter how sincere they might be.

Dan's series raises the specter of demonstrations and loud objections to the facts which transparency would disclose, but I doubt that we would see anything like the chaos he suggests.  As Mike Quinn pointed out, it is actually "faith promoting."

However, Quinn didn’t “leave the church”.  He is a firm believer who was excommunicated.  But given that, it is impressive that he remains so even-handed in his writings about the church. 

And I fully agree with your comments here about transparency and fear. 

[CV75]

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

Dr. Daniel Peterson has been publishing a thoughtful series on the Church's finances and critiques of the Church's "transparency" or purported lack/insufficiency thereof:

• LDS Inc. (Part One)
• LDS Inc. (Part Two)
• LDS Inc. (Part Three)
• LDS Inc. (Part Four)
• LDS Inc. (Part Five)
• LDS Inc. (Part Six)
• LDS Inc. (Part Seven)
• LDS Inc. (Part Eight)
• LDS Inc. (Part Nine)
• LDS Inc. (Part Ten)
• LDS Inc. (Part Eleven)

Dr. P makes some pretty good points, some of which we have discussed here.  I'm hoping you folks will read them and post your thoughts/observations/responses.

Thanks,

-Smac

I see fiscal transparency as a matter of personal style and not a fundamental or essential Gospel principle. The inspired decision-making council structure will settle upon teh Church's "personal style" as a unanimous amalgam of those personalities (who have been called of God who knows them well) who hold the keys to decide, pray and seek confirmation about what to do. So I don't take it personally!

[pogi]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think you may be jumping to conclusions about the extent to which this unnamed General Authority would have preferred to see the finances “more open.” . 

What makes you say that?  Where did I jump to conclusions?  I think you’re the one jumping to conclusions about me and making baseless assumptions about this GA.

Edited December 12, 2019 by pogi

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think you may be jumping to conclusions about the extent to which this unnamed General Authority would have preferred to see the finances “more open.” 
 

Since Pogi didn’t identify how much, but merely a direction of change, I think you are making a faulty assumption. 

[stemelbow]

I agree with Dr. Peterson.  It is good for the Church to have large financial interests to support it's corporate design.  But I'd maintain, there is a better and best way.  

I'm also a bit skeptical of the claim of financial independence and yet it seeks more donations, year after year, to support it's operations, including it's corporate interests.  That suggests it's corporate designs remain a significant priority, which no doubts feeds the position any critic might take.  Financial independence suggests, of course, it need not take any donations for it to run and operate.  And considering many of the Church's business interests are growing, or imagining that to be the case, if the Church is being prudent with it's much wealth, there seems less and less need for members to give to that corporation claiming to be the Kingdom of God.  

 

And BTW, if you read the comments in these parts, I'm DavidB, for full disclosure.  

Edited December 12, 2019 by stemelbow

[CV75]

39 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I agree with Dr. Peterson.  It is good for the Church to have large financial interests to support it's corporate design.  But I'd maintain, there is a better and best way.  

I'm also a bit skeptical of the claim of financial independence and yet it seeks more donations, year after year, to support it's operations, including it's corporate interests.  That suggests it's corporate designs remain a significant priority, which no doubts feeds the position any critic might take.  Financial independence suggests, of course, it need not take any donations for it to run and operate.  And considering many of the Church's business interests are growing, or imagining that to be the case, if the Church is being prudent with it's much wealth, there seems less and less need for members to give to that corporation claiming to be the Kingdom of God. 

And BTW, if you read the comments in these parts, I'm DavidB, for full disclosure.  

D&C 78 is all about setting up temporal systems in the Church by covenant so “that the church may stand independent above all other creatures beneath the celestial world; That you may come up unto the crown prepared for you, and be made rulers over many kingdoms, saith the Lord God, the Holy One of Zion…”

This independence requires, in addition to faith, material sacrifice and consecration (“donations”) of the faithful, self-reliant members of the Church who are both stewards over and beneficiaries of worldly business matters well beyond the Church’s.

Who is DavidB?

[pogi]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My position is not all that different from Dr. Peterson’s. If the Church leaders were to announce tomorrow a policy change on this matter, I would support it. But unless and until that happens, I’m not going to advocate or agitate for it. Doesn’t sound like Professor Peterson is so inclined either, or, for that matter, that the unnamed and now deceased General Authority was either. 

Just curious, if you would support transparency and recognize that it could happen, and if you want to been seen as a defender of the brethren and their policies, then why are you taking the ill-considered route of attacking the idea and anyone who verbalizes their desire to see more transparency?  If you argue that it is a bad idea now, you are going to be seen as a hypocritical defender of the policy if you suddenly begin to argue that it is a good idea - a.k.a a fair weather fan.

What is wrong with vocalizing one's desire to see change?  If that is equivalent to "advocating or agitating", then is vocalizing your distaste for transparency and naming all the reasons why it would be a bad idea not going to put you in the position of being an "advocate and agitator" for something that you have no say in and that the Church may change in. 

You say that the GA would not be inclined to advocate or agitate for change, yet it is abundantly clear that he did indeed vocalize his desire for change to others, would you accuse him of "advocating or agitating"? 

Edited December 12, 2019 by pogi

[smac97]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Just curious, if you would support transparency and recognize that it could happen, and if you want to been seen as a defender of the brethren and their policies, then why are you taking the ill-considered route of attacking the idea and anyone who verbalizes their desire to see more transparency? 

For my part, I don't object to such verbalizations per se.  Instead, my reservations usually pertain to the time, place, and manner of such verbalizations.  Some are reasoned and constrained and civil.  Some are defamatory, accusatory, and intended to be coercive, and to foment ill will against the Church, and to injure its reputation.

Quote

What is wrong with vocalizing one's desire to see change?  If that is equivalent to "advocating or agitating", then is vocalizing your distaste for transparency and naming all the reasons why it would be a bad idea not going to put you in the position of being an "advocate and agitator" for something that you have no say in and that the Church may change in. 

Again: Time, place and manner matter.  Motives and intent matter.  

I have no qualms with speaking civilly and in good faith about such things.

Quote

You say that the GA would not be inclined to advocate or agitate for change, yet it is abundantly clear that he did indeed vocalize his desire for change to others, would you accuse him of "advocating or agitating"? 

Scott wasn't "accusing" anyone.  He was simply saying that he would not "advocate or agitate."

I think Scott may be concerned about calls for transparency that are presented in bad faith, or which are intended to be coercive, or which are otherwise inappropriate in the time, place and/or manner of their presentation.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 12, 2019 by smac97

[rockpond]

In Parts Two and Three, Peterson tackles the criticism that the Church "spends far more money on malls and stocks than on humanitarian assistance to the needy" by explaining the difference between spending and investing.

I agree with the important points he makes in differentiating between when the church *spends* money on chapels, operations, and humanitarian aid vs. when the church *invests* money in profit-making ventures.

He reaches this conclusion at the end of Part Three:  "When the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints invests money that has come into its possession, it isn’t really spending it.  It’s storing those funds for future use."

I differ slightly with him here.  I don't see investing in commercial real estate as storing funds for future use.  The word "storing" to me sounds like you are placing the money somewhere and when you need it you'll go grab it and use it.

I think it would have been more accurate for Peterson to have said that they are "growing it for future use".  More specifically, they are investing in long-term assets that will produce income over many years while also (hopefully) growing the principal as well.

 

In Part Four, Peterson delves into the reasons why the Church should reserve funds.  He lists four specific points:

Quote

If the Church were to give away all of its money, doing so would scarcely make a dent in world hunger, disease, and poverty.  It would then be, at least intermittently, unable to do any more.

Mostly true.  The Church is always receiving more tithing money - it has a fairly steady, reliable source of revenue.  But, I agree with him that it would be extremely foolish for church leaders to not keep healthy reserves in place.

Quote

Important though they are, there are many other things for which the Church needs to expend funds.  And these are ongoing expenses that can’t simply be paid off at one fell swoop, such as the construction and maintenance of chapels and temples and schools, the sponsorship of family history research, the support of missionary efforts, and so forth.  (The fact that many if not most critics of Church finances disdain these as unworthy causes is irrelevant.)

Agreed.

Quote

It seems important that the Church maintain reserve resources in order to meet unexpected needs and crises.

Absolutely.

Quote

Times of economic downturn, when unusual strains will be placed upon Church resources, will be precisely the times when tithing and other voluntary donations will also decline and when saved reserves will be of most urgent value.

The problem I see with this statement is that when it comes to commercial real estate (Peterson has been referring to the City Creek investment), those "reserves" will not be readily accessible during an economic downtown.  And the income from those assets will decrease for the same reason that tithing and voluntary donations decrease.  If the US were to have a serious recession, Church owned properties like the South Loop apartment tower in Chicago, CityLine in Texas, 111 Main and City Creek in SLC would be likely to see occupancy and lease rates drop.  Finding buyers for those properties during a recession could also prove difficult.

So, while I agree with Peterson that the Church needs to have reserves and that investment over spending is wise, we cannot look at the Church's commercial real estate investments as our rainy day fund during a recession.

 

I'm looking forward to reading the additional sections.