whistleblower on Church finances

[HappyJackWagon]

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.

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

Thanks,

-Smac

Come on. Really? The church doesn't spend money on the trappings of wealth? Like...ever?

The church must really abhor wealth. Why else would they be so chincy with the essentials?

Super cool chandelier. I hear it's Jesus' favorite.

Then again, burlap walls don't really scream wealth and success, so maybe you have a point.    

[smac97]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I agree with the bolded part.  However, before something has been proven true, it's reasonable to use the evidence provided, including the source, when trying to gauge the credibility of the accusations.

I think it's pretty obvious that the Nielsens have a bone to pick with the Church.  However, their allegations are not dependent on their (the Nielsens') credibility.  Whether the Church complied with the law will be a matter of paperwork, accounting, etc.  Consequently, the personal credibility of the Nielsens does not seem relevant to the issue at hand.

I contrast this situation with, say, the lawsuit filed by McKenna Denson.  Her personal credibility was hugely important in assessing the allegations against the Church in that case.

Thanks,

-Smac

[carbon dioxide]

If the Church is building up a money chest then it is simply doing what it actually believes in.  If you believe that as we approach the 2nd Coming and you believe that what occurs before that is a period of war, famine, plagues, cities being destroyed by earthquakes and by the oceans, then you build up strong enough fortifications ahead of time to weather the storms.  If you look at what the scriptures and what the prophets have said regarding this and then look at what science is saying on climate change, they fit hand and glove very well.  The scriptures and prophets have told us what happens before Christ comes.  Climate change if it is correct then explains most of why it is happening.  Waiting of the last minute for anything usually results in big problems.  You fire proof your home in the spring when the weather is still cool and fire danger is low. You don't wait to clear the brush and weeds as the fire is racing to your house.  It is too late by then. 

I will say however if the church does have vast financial reserves, is should help LDS families out by paying the full cost of missions.  That would be a good use of those funds.

Edited December 17, 2019 by carbon dioxide

[smac97]

Just now, carbon dioxide said:

If the Church is building up a money chest then it is simply doing what it actually believes in.  If you believe that as we approach the 2nd Coming and you believe that what occurs before that is a period of war, famine, plagues, cities being destroyed by earthquakes and by the oceans, then you build up strong enough fortifications ahead of time to weather the storms.  If you look at what the scriptures and what the prophets have said regarding this and then look at what science is saying on climate change, they fit hand and glove very well.  The scriptures and prophets have told us what happens before Christ comes.  Climate change if it is correct then explains most of why it is happening.  Waiting of the last minute for anything usually results in big problems.  You fire proof your home in the spring when the weather is still cool and fire danger is low. You don't wait to clear the brush and weeds as the first is racing to your house.  It is too late by then. 

I will say however if the church does have vast financial reserves, is should help LDS families out by paying the full cost of missions.  That would be a good use of those funds.

I dunno.  Part of the value I derived from my missionary service was that I (and my family) paid my way.  For me, this increased the sacrifice, and hence the meaning, and hence the measure of consecration.

YMMV.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

5 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

My problem is the claim that hard to believe.  100 or 125 billion over 22 years?  The people who work in that unit must be some of the best money managers and investors in the world.   This is Warren Buffett levels of money managing and investing.  Perhaps Ensign might be doing some wrong things but these numbers I have having a hard time with.  They just don't seem realistic to me. 

It depends upon how much they started with and how much they've added over the years. As I recall from the interview with Infants on Thrones, the Church has pumped about $35 billion of tithing money into the savings account, which grew to $100 billion (I didn't pick up on how the additional $25ish billion in illiquid real estate fits into that formula). That's definitely plausible.

[ttribe]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Lars Nielsen was certainly thinking of "the public at large."

He's looking for a massive pound of flesh.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm sure you have plenty of experience, as do I, with witnesses who are their own worst enemies. Some might say Harry Markopolos was seeking a pound of flesh from a competitor, but he was right and Madoff would have been brought down much sooner if the SEC had listened and not been distracted by his personality. 

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree with the bolded part.  However, before something has been proven true, it's reasonable to use the evidence provided, including the source, when trying to gauge the credibility of the accusations.

And all I've said is that it is foolish to dismiss the evidence based on a perception of the source. 

Edited December 17, 2019 by ttribe

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

With a name like Letter to an IRS Director, it seems to have come from a different pool of motivation at least at first imo. 

In the podcast I shared, he mentioned attributing that title to Runnels's "letter to the CES director".

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Come on. Really? The church doesn't spend money on the trappings of wealth? Like...ever?

The church must really abhor wealth. Why else would they be so chincy with the essentials?

Ah, yes.  This is a picture of Pres. Nelson's in-town villa, right?

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Super cool chandelier. I hear it's Jesus' favorite.

Yes, that would be . . . Pres. Eyring's staircase.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

He’s making an analogy to show how fallacious your argument is when you accuse the Church of shifting its tax burden. 

Yes individuals who may barely scrape by and get tax relief are sure a burden compared to corporations who otherwise would contribute perhaps millions.  I don't know that Nielsen's have any standing here at all. I"m just saying as a matter of concern this would be one, if what they have is legit.  

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

And are you actually arguing with a straight face that people who itemize their deductions to pay less in taxes are wrong to do so? That one of the zaniest things I’ve heard. 

Of course not.  

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think it's pretty obvious that the Nielsens have a bone to pick with the Church.  However, their allegations are not dependent on their (the Nielsens') credibility.  Whether the Church complied with the law will be a matter of paperwork, accounting, etc.  Consequently, the personal credibility of the Nielsens does not seem relevant to the issue at hand.

I contrast this situation with, say, the lawsuit filed by McKenna Denson.  Her personal credibility was hugely important in assessing the allegations against the Church in that case.

Thanks,

-Smac

I understand that.  But since none of us have the ability to determine whether or not the church has complied with the law, all we can discuss is the evidence we have access too, some of which is the source of the accusations.  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Uhhhh......lean times ahead, a boom in membership in undeveloped nations, bribing the Illuminati to get a seat at the table, etc. There are all kinds of potential purposes that seers might see.

Those are valid to a point, but we are well beyond that point Comparing the size of the endowment to the churches annual operating expenses. People are saying the church has been so wise compared to the US government. I wonder how people here would react to the news that the US in secret stocked piled .7 trillion a year and had a reserve worth 66 trillion? Would they praise it for its fiscal responsibility?

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Yes individuals who may barely scrape by and get tax relief are sure a burden compared to corporations who otherwise would contribute perhaps millions. 

Ah.  Special pleading gnow

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

You fire proof your home in the spring when the weather is still cool and fire danger is low. You don't wait to clear the brush and weeds as the fire is racing to your house.  It is too late by then. 

However, some may look at it as saving the money to clear out brush and weeds, but not actually paying for it to be done, possibly not until it happens.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Come on. Really? The church doesn't spend money on the trappings of wealth? Like...ever?

The church must really abhor wealth. Why else would they be so chincy with the essentials?

Super cool chandelier. I hear it's Jesus' favorite.

Then again, burlap walls don't really scream wealth and success, so maybe you have a point.    

The decorations of the temple exist for a much different reason than to showcase the wealth of the church (ie. "trappings of wealth") though.  The church has always made its temples as beautiful as it possibly could, even when the church and it's members had very little money.  This is because the way temples are decorated has little to do with showcasing the luxury wealth makes possible and everything to do with the church's beliefs on how God wants the temple to be decorated.  

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Ah.  Special pleading gnow

Thanks,

-Smac

In what way is that special pleading?  I haven't argued either way about whether anyone should itemize their taxes.I mentioned my concerns and it devolved into you two getting worked up about itemized taxes, which point feels like a mere deflection and missing the point.  

[smac97]

17 hours ago, bluebell said:

I understand that.  But since none of us have the ability to determine whether or not the church has complied with the law, all we can discuss is the evidence we have access too, some of which is the source of the accusations.  

This is where "opposition in all things" can become a blessing.  One of the reasons I inclined to give the Church the benefit of the doubt is that it has so many antagonists (including, sadly, some members of the Church) who would be thrilled to find evidence of wrongdoing by the Church (or at least something that makes the Church look bad somehow), and in putting such evidence on public display.  Such sentiments come right out of the playbook used by folks like Ryan McKnight, Kate Kelly, John Dehlin, McKenna Denson, Craig Vernon, Tim Kosnoff, Pat Bagley, and so on.

As an attorney, I work in an adversarial setting.  I know that everything I submit to the court will be scrutinized not only by the judge, but by the court clerk (who has a law degree) and - most importantly - by opposing counsel.  I think I'm a pretty honest fellow, but knowing that everything I write will be heavily scrutinized creates a very strong incentive for me to be super-duper accurate in my citation to evidence, authorities, etc.  

I think the leaders of the Church function under a similar dynamic.  I therefore think it would be really hard for the Church to violate the law to the tune of tens of billions of dollars.  Not only because I think the Church and those who administer it are overwhelmingly good and decent, but also because they know there are all sorts of opponents and critics who are eager to find fault.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 18, 2019 by smac97

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, ttribe said:

And all I've said is that it is foolish to dismiss the evidence based on a perception of the source. 

I get that.  All I'm saying is that the source of the accusations can be one way for us to gauge the credibility of the evidence, until we have more to go on.

[provoman]

1 hour 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?

 

An online article says 2010

[Analytics]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Per the Church's statement: “Claims being currently circulated are based on a narrow perspective and limited information. The church complies with all applicable law governing our donations, investments, taxes and reserves. We continue to welcome the opportunity to work with officials to address questions they may have.”

This doesn't sound like spin, or deflection, or evasion.  It sounds like the Church is pretty comfortable that it has complied with the law.

Actually no, I don't see it.  What a disgruntled former member of the Church things the Church "should" do with its funds is not a "legal argument."

A disgruntled former member of the Church asking the IRS to punish the Church by revoking its tax exemption is not a "legal argument."

Thanks,

-Smac

It's not about what a former member of the Church, disgruntled or otherwise, thinks the Church should do with its money. It's about the U.S. Code. I'd be interested in your response to the following quote from the Washington Post. If a charity simply amasses a war chest year after year and does not spend any money for charity purposes, does it meet the requirements of tax law to be tax-exempt? Or is Professor Hackney wrong?

Philip Hackney, a former IRS official who teaches tax law at the University of Pittsburgh, said the complaint raised a “legitimate concern” about whether the church’s investment arm deserved its tax-exempt status.

“If you have a charity that simply amasses a war chest year after year and does not spend any money for charity purposes, that does not meet the requirements of tax law,” Hackney said in an interview. Hackney, who served in the IRS chief counsel’s office, has been retained by The Post to analyze the whistleblower documents.

IRS rules dictate that a nonprofit organization must carry out charitable activity that is “commensurate in scope with its financial resources” to maintain its tax-exempt status. No threshold for this test is specified, and the agency instead considers examples case by case.

[ttribe]

Just now, bluebell said:

I get that.  All I'm saying is that the source of the accusations can be one way for us to gauge the credibility of the evidence, until we have more to go on.

Naturally. I'm just cautioning against bias. 

[Amulek]

5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I wonder how people here would react to the news that the US in secret stocked piled .7 trillion a year and had a reserve worth 66 trillion? Would they praise it for its fiscal responsibility?

You mean if, instead of running gigantic financial deficits year after year, running headlong into the bleak future where we have to decide between forfeiting on our debts for foreign investors or to the public (i.e., entitlements), it turned out that the government actually had a surplus in financial reserve which could cover all of those obligations? I don't know about anyone else, but I for one would be very pleasantly surprised by that state of affairs.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 minutes ago, Amulek said:

You mean if, instead of running gigantic financial deficits year after year, running headlong into the bleak future where we have to decide between forfeiting on our debts for foreign investors or to the public (i.e., entitlements), it turned out that the government actually had a surplus in financial reserve which could cover all of those obligations? I don't know about anyone else, but I for one would be very pleasantly surprised by that state of affairs.

And you wouldn’t ask for any tax cuts or rebates right? The government should keep amassing wealth. Correct?

[Mystery Meat]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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?

I would, because if your numbers were possible (I doubt it), it would mean our national treasury was healthy. I don't think it currently is.

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Danzo said:

but probably won't be. Even if he made everything up. The IRS is very selective on who they prosecute. 

And according to Lars on the podcast I shared, the IRS personel in Ogden are probably LDS. But the IRS will get monies so who knows which way they will go.

[JAHS]

5 minutes ago, Analytics said:

No threshold for this test is specified, and the agency instead considers examples case by case.

The key phrase. So let's let them examine the case and make a ruling on it ........... based on this lack of threshold.   Huh?