Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

whistleblower on Church finances


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Does anyone find it strangley peculiar that Daniel Peterson released a series of articles about the finances of the Church and then this hits the fan? Either they were responding to it or it's a mighty bizarre coincidence

Depending on how long the Post had the story before publishing it, the PA department might have found out due to being asked for a comment and then solicited the articles from Dan. 

 However, this is a very frequent subject these days, so it may be coincidental.

Link to comment

People keep making comparisons to the United States government and how mismanaged it is compared to the church. Let’s do the math. The US government spent 4 trillion in 2017. The church spent 6 billion. So the US government out spent the church by a factor of 666 (coincidence? ;)). The church has a budget surplus of 1 billion and an endowment of 100 billion (assuming the documents aren’t forged). 


So let’s say the US government held 66 trillion in reserve funds, and took in a surplus of .66 trillion every year. Everyone here would be okay with that right?

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:
Quote

And the dastardly aspect of money being added to coffers is . . . what, exactly? 

How much wealth accumulation is enough?

What do you mean by "wealth"?

The Church is a corporate entity.  It does not spend money on the trappings of "wealth." 

Those who have access to and control of the Church's finances are not living profligately, or anything close to it.  They are not in it for the money. 

The Church's efforts are entirely humanitarian / religious / philanthropic.  What money the Church makes in its for-profit endeavors is plowed back into strengthening the financial health of the Church, which in turn spends its efforts on noble and good things.

The Church is not accumulating "wealth" as an end unto itself.  It is living within its means.  It is a good steward of its funds.  It is preparing for difficult days ahead.

Quote

Should the church continue to accumulate as it has? Is accumulating wealth for no stated purpose a reasonable activity for a tax exempt organization?

I don't accept the premise (that the Church is "accumulating wealth for no stated purpose").

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Does anyone find it strangley peculiar that Daniel Peterson released a series of articles about the finances of the Church and then this hits the fan? Either they were responding to it or it's a mighty bizarre coincidence

Didn't Jana Reiss just publish an article about how the church needs to be more transparent with finances?  I wouldn't be surprised if Dan's stuff was more in reaction to that than this, but who knows.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

Not all members live close to a bishops storehouse.  Food is not always readily available.

The other option used is the RS President or other designated member goes out and buys the food from a regular store in my experience.  No storehouse required. 

The Church does this on a global scale as well in disasters giving money to local organizations that then purchases needs from local businesses.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I have two main concerns with the issues raised.

1.  The poorest among us are required (at least to reach heaven) to donate money to the Church and as it turns out the Church can operate in the exact same way it has without any more donations. 

The poorest among us are invited to emulate the widow, who gave a mite.

Earlier this year my parents returned from a mission in Zimbabwe.  The people there are desperately poor.  They are nevertheless happy to make consecrated donations.

With respect, who are you to tell them that they are too poor to do so?  Who are you to demand that they be treated differently - lesser - because they are poor?

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It's grown into an enormous corporation off the backs of the poor and the poor or no one really has any knowledge of where that money goes and what its used for.  This gives us some light--the money goes to make more money.

"Off the backs of the poor."

I'm taking you less seriously now.

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

2.  If the Church is a large corporation it certainly should be treated like one.  If it is intent on being amongst the most lucrative corporations in the world it should be treated like one. 

Facile nonsense.

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Large corporations are externally audited, made public (for the most part) and actually pay taxes. 

Sigh.  The Church "actually pay{s} taxes" on its for-profit businesses.  

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If the Church is building wealth off investments, off the backs of members and through it's business interests it should bear the burden of taxes, without such that burden falls on all of us instead. 

Also, I assume you itemize your taxes, yes?  In so doing, you pay less in taxes than you otherwise would.  That means you are shifting part of your "burden" of taxes onto "all of us instead."  Are you wrong to do so?  

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If these allegations are true, the Church is benefitting from all of us, whether donors or not, to build more wealth.  

And the use of that wealth is . . . what?  What is the controversy?  What misuse of funds do you think is happening here?

If those who have access to and control of the Church's "wealth" were living high off the hog, you might have the beginnings of a point.  As it is...

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I never said "all" whistleblowers are altruistic. However, as whistleblowers do (on the whole) have a role in rooting out fraud and other criminal activity, I (as a CFE) am a strong proponent of protecting whistleblowers. Not to mention that dismissing the entirety of the allegations based solely on one's perception of his motives is intellectually lazy and shows no willingness to consider the actual evidence as it becomes available. 

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I just read your profile. I think I may know your dad from spending a whole day with him and his grandkids up in the mountain colonies. He was here to visit sites and he gave a fireside talk. It was a great day!

When was that?  1995 or 1996?

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, ttribe said:

With respect, I don't think you have any feel for how awful it is to be a whistleblower. I'd suggest reading up on Harry Markopolos and Cynthia Cooper,  for example. 

Generally I would agree with you but in this case I do not. Those people did not want the spotlight but mostly just wanted some malfeasance exposed. These doofuses do want the spotlight and sought it out. I encourage everyone to remember that if they start whining about the repercussions.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Didn't Jana Reiss just publish an article about how the church needs to be more transparent with finances?  I wouldn't be surprised if Dan's stuff was more in reaction to that than this, but who knows.

His series was in reaction to Riess. He said so directly in the first installment. 
The more likely conspiracy theory is that Riess was in cahoots with the whistleblower, though I don’t believe that’s the case. 

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

While that sounds nice it would not work in the US. Suppose tomorrow the government went from 23 trillion in debt to having that much in reserve. If they throw it into banks interest rates plummet as supply of money to borrow will vastly exceed demand. If they throw it into the stock market it will skyrocket stock values and tank dividends. The end result would be that it would not generate the interest to cover everything. Government bonds, one of the foundations of the economy, would vanish as well. What works on the micro level for a church or a company or a household does not work on the macro level.

I'd be happy to just be out of debt, get back on the gold standard, and get our taxes down to 10%.

 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

His series was in reaction to Riess. He said so directly in the first installment. 
The more likely conspiracy theory is that Riess was in cahoots with the whistleblower, though I don’t believe that’s the case. 

Doubt it, she was not complimentary to the whistleblower in her latest piece.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Wealth: (noun) an abundance of valuable possessions or money.

Yes, yes.  But what do you mean by it?  Are you finding fault with the Church for accumulating money?  Living within its means?  Spending it on religious / educational / philanthropic / humanitarian endeavors?  

Are you suggesting that the Church is mis-spending its money?  If so, on what?

Are you suggesting that the Church is not spending enough?  If so, what metric do you use?  

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, ttribe said:

With respect, I don't think you have any feel for how awful it is to be a whistleblower. 

I dunno.  The remarks of Lars Nielsen sure have a strong pound of flesh whiff coming off them.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
54 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I've seen it said elsewhere that the whistle blower had only worked for the church for a couple of months.  Does anyone know if that's true?

David Nielson was a senior portfolio manager for Ensign Peak Advisors from September 2010 to September 2019; 10 years.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The poorest among us are invited to emulate the widow, who gave a mite.

Earlier this year my parents returned from a mission in Zimbabwe.  The people there are desperately poor.  They are nevertheless happy to make consecrated donations.

With respect, who are you to tell them that they are too poor to do so?  Who are you to demand that they be treated differently - lesser - because they are poor?

Seeing your questions tells me you have missed my point.  

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Off the backs of the poor."

I'm taking you less seriously now.

We all have different views.  Reasonable people can disagree.  

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Facile nonsense.

Sigh.  The Church "actually pay{s} taxes" on its for-profit businesses.  

The allegation is that there is  a problem here. It sounds worth looking into to me.  

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Also, I assume you itemize your taxes, yes?  In so doing, you pay less in taxes than you otherwise would.  That means you are shifting part of your "burden" of taxes onto "all of us instead."  Are you wrong to do so?

Not sure I get your point. If an individual itemizes his or her taxes how is that shifting a burnden to another individual who itemizes?  

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And the use of that wealth is . . . what?  What is the controversy?  What misuse of funds do you think is happening here?

I just explained the issues as I see them.   The Church has an enormous pile of money.  It will never shrink at the current plan.  It will only grow.  The Church is growing wealth.  Fine.  If it wants to be a large corporation then it should be treated like one.  External audits to make sure it's paying its fair share of taxes and transparency.  

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If those who have access to and control of the Church's "wealth" were living high off the hog, you might have the beginnings of a point.  As it is...

Thanks,

-Smac

That has absolutely nothing to do with it, in my view.  Of course in terms of the rest of the world they are living lavishly.  But that is not a concern of mine at this point as it relates to any of this.  

Link to comment
1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Doubt it, she was not complimentary to the whistleblower in her latest piece.

I never thought she was. I only meant that if one believes there’s a conspiracy afoot here, it seems more likely that it’s a conspiracy between Riess and the whistleblower than that it’s between Dan and someone else in anticipation of the whistleblower. 

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Generally I would agree with you but in this case I do not. Those people did not want the spotlight but mostly just wanted some malfeasance exposed. These doofuses do want the spotlight and sought it out. I encourage everyone to remember that if they start whining about the repercussions.

 

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I dunno.  The remarks of Lars Nielsen sure have a strong pound of flesh whiff coming off them.

Thanks,

-Smac

How they've handled themselves is irrelevant if they are telling the truth, though.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Not sure I get your point. If an individual itemizes his or her taxes how is that shifting a burnden to another individual who itemizes?  

If you itemize, you shift the burden to those who don’t itemize, not to those who do. Smac’s point is not that difficult to grasp. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...