whistleblower on Church finances

[rodheadlee]

22 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And how does saving for the second coming work? Like governments are failing, the world is dying and the church’s portfolio is going to be worth what exactly!?

Read the Cardston Temple prophecy you'll figure it out.

[Calm]

Quote

D. Michael Quinn, a historian who has studied LDS Church finances, said the income figures cited in the complaint are difficult to reconcile with his own research, which suggests annual tithing receipts of roughly $35 billion.

From the Trib...

If annual tithing receipts are around $35 billion, $100 billion would be approximately 3 years worth.  

I was once told eons ago by someone I believe would know that  the Church managed things by having in hand what they needed for the next three years, during which three years what was gathered and saved was then applied to the next three years, so they always had the needed money promised from projects.  The $100 billion being 3 times as much as Quinn's yearly income makes me wonder if there is some connection there.

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

There is very much a point.  You are differentiating between the Church and its members.  You are suggesting that Church-directed-and-administered humanitarian and service efforts don't "count."

I must take exception to that.  My missionary service was consecrated, given, to the Church.  Of course the Church can "claim" what I have freely given to it.  

What does this mean?  Members of the Church donate more than just money to the Church.  We also donate time and effort.  How does this not "count"?

Many times, yes, we are "donating" our time to the Church, just as we do with our money.

Huh?

-Smac

You misunderstood or I just wasn't clear (a real possibility).

I wasn't saying that serviced rendered by members doesn't count.

My comments were in response to the suggestion that the Church should (or could) assign a dollar amount to time that members donate and count that dollar amount among its donations to humanitarian aid.

While Church directed and administered humanitarian service efforts certainly count.  I don't think the Church should say:  Brother Smith, an optometrist, served for 18 months giving eye care to poor children in Africa so we're going to count his time as a $250,000 donation to humanitarian aid by the church.  Everything that the church expended in directing/administering the work could be put into their calculation of donations.  But the time was Brother Smith's donation to the cause, not the Church's.

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

54 minutes ago, Calm said:

From the Trib...

If annual tithing receipts are around $35 billion, $100 billion would be approximately 3 years worth.  

I was once told eons ago by someone I believe would know that  the Church managed things by having in hand what they needed for the next three years, during which three years what was gathered and saved was then applied to the next three years, so they always had the needed money promised from projects.  The $100 billion being 3 times as much as Quinn's yearly income makes me wonder if there is some connection there.

Let’s assume 5 MM full tithe payers. That comes to $7,000 per person including children. Hardly seems close to feasible. 

Edited December 18, 2019 by SeekingUnderstanding

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The accusations are so phantasmal they are hard to refute if they wanted to. It is illegal for a nonprofit to have a large reserve? No. There are some line items this guy thinks are shady even though he does not have any details about it? How do you refute that?

It's actually very easy to refute.  The Church can just show the IRS how those line items were investments in City Creek and Beneficial Life.  As for the size of the portfolio - I suppose that is for the IRS to decide since their code doesn't appear to set specific guidelines.  I don't expect that the IRS will find any wrongdoing by the Church.

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

People will think the church has too much money?

That's was happening long before this whistleblower came on the scene.

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That is not a legal accusation and it is even hard to form a moral accusation out of it. Instead we have condemnation on what it should have been spent on instead. It is just an excuse to rehash yet again some people’s favorite rhetorical appeal.

It is a legal accusation.  The accusation is that the Church have violated IRS tax laws.  I'm not saying that the accusation has merit, I've already said that I don't think it does.  But it does appear to be a "legal accusation".  And it also could be the whistleblower seeking revenge on a church that he and his family have left.  Both things could be true.

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, Danzo said:

Not getting your logic. 

Normally when we make a contribution to the church in money, we call the money our contribution and when the church spends it it is part of the churches functional expenses. The money that one gives to one organization isn't offset by what is spent by that organization.

The same with Donations of Time.  Time donated isn't cancelled by the use of the time by the organization.  

This is recognized by tax law.  You are allowed to deduct unreimbursed volunteer expenses only if they are done for a qualified organization, you cant just go out and volunteer (In this country or another country) and deduct your expenses. It has to be for a valid organization.  

When I go work at the local soup kitchen (a qualified non-profit), can I say that three hours of my work constitutes a $150 donation and deduct it from taxes?

[JAHS]

51 minutes ago, smac97 said:

JAHS,

Not cool, man.  Don't I have first dibs on posting news items?

😀

-Smac

Sorry. You missed it by 8 minutes 🙂  You did present it better than I did though. 😉

[Thinking]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Are you suggesting that accumulating 100 billion for charity is immoral?

No. What I am saying is that in my opinion it should be more important to determine how much is really being accumulated and where it's being allocated.

[pogi]

1 minute ago, Thinking said:

No. What I am saying is that in my opinion it should be more important to determine how much is really being accumulated and where it's being allocated.

You suggested that defenders of the faith only defend the legality of what the church does when there is controversy and “ignore the morality” of it.  That sounds to me like an accusation of immorality.

[Thinking]

I did some research a few years ago and this is what I found for the year 2012.

• 1,951,937 (68.36%) of Utah’s total population of 2,855,287 were members of the LDS Church.
• The total personal income in Utah for 2012 was $98,797,168,000.
• If Mormons made 68.36% of the personal income, that total would be $67.54 billion.
• 10% (tithing) of that total is $6.754 billion.
• If the critics are correct, there is only a 25% activity rate, which would reduce that total to $1.69 billion.
• That’s $1.69 billion in tithing just from Utah.

[carbon dioxide]

The difference between the LDS Church and other churches is that we actually believe what we teach and act on it.  What I mean is a lot of churches believe that there will be a lot of bad stuff before the 2nd Coming of Christ.  What are they doing to prepare their members for it?  I don't see much.  They almost take the view that the Lord will protect them or rapture them away.  We believe that when we are warned, we need to plan and act. To prepare for the day or period of bad times.  Those who wait til the last minute are slothful.  If the church is hording billions of dollars in preparation of bad stuff coming up, that hording is actually for a religious and social purpose.  Frankly 100 billion IF TRUE, is probably not enough.  The church hopefully will use a lot of it to buy supplies, land, and other things.   I have not idea what the church has planned but we may all be very thankful one day that when things go south, we will have more than the government to help us out.  WE are not going to sleep walk into the 2nd coming.  The things that occur before it will be extreme to the max.  If you really believe Christ and want Christ to come again, you have to accept that reality and prepare well in advance. 

[Thinking]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

You suggested that defenders of the faith only defend the legality of what the church does when there is controversy and “ignore the morality” of it.  That sounds to me like an accusation of immorality.

No accusations, just questions.

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You misunderstood or I just wasn't clear (a real possibility).

I wasn't saying that serviced rendered by members doesn't count.

My comments were in response to the suggestion that the Church should (or could) assign a dollar amount to time that members donate and count that dollar amount among its donations to humanitarian aid.

Oh.  Okay.  Why not?  Dollars are, after all, the "coin of the realm."  

Let's say that the Church organizes 2 millions hours of volunteer work by its members.  Are you saying that those hours have no monetary value?  At all?  

Consider this article:

Quote

Most nonprofits, particularly small ones, rely on free help from volunteers. Indeed, about 85% of all nonprofits have no paid staff at all and rely entirely on volunteers. Even larger nonprofits that have paid staff often have substantial numbers of volunteers working for them.

How much is all this volunteer time worth? A lot. The organization Independent Sector estimates that the value of volunteer time for 2019 was $25.43 per hour. About 63 million Americans gave 8 billion hours of volunteer service worth $203.4 billion in 2018.

That's a lot of money. It's great that there are volunteers willing to help nonprofits free of charge. However, using volunteers does present a problem when it comes to showing the public the size and effectiveness of your nonprofit. This is because a nonprofit may not include the value of volunteers’ time when it reports its annual revenues to the IRS on Form 990 or 990-EZ. Nor can they include the value of the free use of property—for example, free office space provided by a donor.
...
What can a nonprofit that relies on volunteers do? The value of volunteer services can be mentioned in the part of Form 990 or 990-EZ where your nonprofit describes its service accomplishments. Be sure to do this.

The value of volunteer time can also be included on financial statements, including those used for grant proposals and annual reports. However, accounting rules require that the value of a volunteer's time may be counted only if he or she performs a specialized skill for a nonprofit. The general rule is that such time may be counted only if the nonprofit would have purchased the services if they had not been donated.

Independent Sector's $25.43 per hour figure for valuing volunteer time is only a rough estimate based on the average wages of non-management and non-agricultural works. Some volunteers' time is worth far more.

For good guidance on how to calculate the value of volunteer time, refer Independent Sector’s website at www.independentsector.org.

So are you saying the Church is legally prohibited from assiging a dollar value to volunteer time?  Ethically prohibited?

Do you extend this prohibition to all not-for-profit entities?  

24 minutes ago, rockpond said:

While Church directed and administered humanitarian service efforts certainly count.  I don't think the Church should say:  Brother Smith, an optometrist, served for 18 months giving eye care to poor children in Africa so we're going to count his time as a $250,000 donation to humanitarian aid by the church. 

Are you saying the Church does this?

24 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Everything that the church expended in directing/administering the work could be put into their calculation of donations.  But the time was Brother Smith's donation to the cause, not the Church's.

I don't understand this.  What "cause?"  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[smac97]

Just a few hours ago I wrote this:

Quote

I'm going to wait and see what happens.  I suspect the IRS will make a finding that the Church does indeed comply with the laws governing its finances.  The discussion will then shift from "The Church broke the law!" to oh-so-more-nebulous grumbling from armchair quarterbacks about what the Church should do (which can best be defined as "something vague, but definitely more than the Church is doing now, 'cuz the Church is bad").

Yet another indication that this story is a nothingburger:

Quote

Professor Samuel Brunson of Loyola University Chicago, who teaches law and has done research on taxation of religious entities, said news of the Church’s cash reserves has hit a nerve — especially with members of the faith who are required to give 10% of their earnings to the Church.

Quote

“It’s raised questions about what the Church is doing with the money, and why is it not doing other things like building or giving to the poor or aiding education instead of sitting on this money,” he said.

But Brunson said there will likely be few, if any tax consequences for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Religious organizations don’t have to apply for tax-exempt status, or provide the IRS with accounting of how they spend their money. They do have to refrain from funding political candidates or efforts. In a worst-case scenario, Brunson said it's possible the Church's investment firm, Ensign Peak Advisors, could be stripped of its tax-exempt status and be forced to pay taxes.

“A church, as long as it's doing religious things under the current tax law, can save money, amass money, invest money,” he said.

Benjamin E. Park, professor of religious history at Sam Houston State University in Texas, said it's not news to many that the Church has a lot of cash, but the amount of the surplus is.

“When these numbers come up, there’s sticker shock,” he said.
...
He said most Latter-day Saints trust that Church leaders are responsible stewards of tithing money, but many will likely ask questions about the boundary between proper stewardship and “financial hoarding.” This will likely be of particular concern for some Church members who struggle financially and still tithe to be in good spiritual standing.

Quote

“I think there are the struggling parents who can’t afford to pay for their children’s Christmas presents but are expected to give 10% of their paycheck, and now are seeing that the Church has 1$00 billion in financial reserves. That is going to cause a bit more hesitation,” he said.

Park said all of this warrants a discussion on the financial responsibility of a church in the modern age.

The shift from"The Church broke the law!" to oh-so-more-nebulous grumbling from armchair quarterbacks is happening more quickly than I anticipated.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[pogi]

12 minutes ago, Thinking said:

No accusations, just questions.

Ok, so we aren’t “ignoring the morality” of anything then.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Just a few hours ago I wrote this:

Yet another indication that this story is a nothingburger:

The shift from"The Church broke the law!" to oh-so-more-nebulous grumbling from armchair quarterbacks is happening more quickly than I anticipated.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

See page one of this thread. I’ve been consistent throughout. It’s highly unlikely the church broke any laws. Hoarding 100 billion by siphoning tithing with no plan to use the money and no disclosure is immoral. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Are you suggesting that accumulating 100 billion for charity is immoral?

Yes. 

[JAHS]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

See page one of this thread. I’ve been consistent throughout. It’s highly unlikely the church broke any laws. Hoarding 100 billion by siphoning tithing with no plan to use the money and no disclosure is immoral. 

Of course there is a plan for future use of it, whatever the need might be.  I think most members will agree it is not immoral to not disclose the details. They completely trust church leadership to do what's right about it. The Church has let the members know that they have been making investments with some of the money for future use. This no surprise to most members. 
 

[pogi]

11 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Yes. 

Is Bill Gates immoral for his accumulated wealth for charity?  What dollar amount becomes immoral when saving/investing for charity?

How can something good be immoral?  You may think there is a better use of the money, but how can these consecrated efforts to bless lives be immoral?

Edited December 18, 2019 by pogi

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

See page one of this thread. I’ve been consistent throughout. It’s highly unlikely the church broke any laws. Hoarding 100 billion by siphoning tithing with no plan to use the money and no disclosure is immoral. 

Why?  Your reasoning is not self-evident.  Shoot, your reasoning is nonexistent.  You haven't provided any argument.  Just shoot-from-the-hip, because-I-say-so condemnation.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

When I go work at the local soup kitchen (a qualified non-profit), can I say that three hours of my work constitutes a $150 donation and deduct it from taxes?

You can deduct your unreimbursed expenses (mileage, soup ingredients, perhaps a uniform).  If you just start serving soup to people you cannot deduct the expense.  Moreover the organization could report the value of your time on the 990 part three.  You can't deduct the value of your labor but the organization can report it.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

39 minutes ago, pogi said:

Is Bill Gates immoral for his accumulated wealth for charity?  
 

No

39 minutes ago, pogi said:

What dollar amount becomes immoral when saving/investing for charity?

When does a few grains of sand become a heap? The church, has accumulated a vast sum of money for no reasonable purpose with no disclosure to those paying in all built on the backs of the poor. It’s just dollars floating around in a money bin somewhere.

39 minutes ago, pogi said:

How can something good be immoral?

What good has come of this money? 

39 minutes ago, pogi said:

 You may think there is a better use of the money, but how can these consecrated efforts to bless lives be immoral?

What lives are being blessed? 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Why?  Your reasoning is not self-evident.  Shoot, your reasoning is nonexistent.  You haven't provided any argument.  Just shoot-from-the-hip, because-I-say-so condemnation.

Thanks,

-Smac

In order to be considered charitable, private trusts must donate at least 5% of assets a year. It should go without saying that charitable entities should, you know, be charitable but I guess we needed a law.  This amount seems reasonable and responsible as a minimum.
 

There is no law that requires the church to operate this way. There is no law that says the church needs to disclose to its members what it does with the money it takes in. Just because there is no law doesn’t make it right. Given the state of need in the world, I personally think it is immoral to accumulate this kind of wealth without disclosure. I think it is immoral for tax exempt entities to hoard money in this fashion especially without disclosure. 

Edited December 18, 2019 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

Of course there is a plan for future use of it, whatever the need might be.  I think most members will agree it is not immoral to not disclose the details. They completely trust church leadership to do what's right about it. The Church has let the members know that they have been making investments with some of the money for future use. This no surprise to most members. 
 

Here is a 2018 article posted on the church website about the financial affairs of the church. Included is the following:

Quote

While the vast majority of its financial resources comes from the tithes and offerings of Church members, the Church also holds business interests that help in accomplishing its mission.

“Essentially,” President Gordon B. Hinckley explained, “the business assets which the Church has today are an outgrowth of enterprises which were begun in the pioneer era of our history when we were isolated in the valleys of the mountains of western America.”

President Hinckley noted the sugar beet industry, the Hotel Utah, media and merchandising interests as examples of early Church enterprises. “The Church has maintained certain real estate holdings,” he continued, “particularly those contiguous to Temple Square, to help preserve the beauty and the integrity of the core of the city. All of these commercial properties are tax-paying entities.” He observed that “the combined income from all of these business interests is relatively small and would not keep the work going for longer than a very brief period” (“Questions and Answers,” Ensign, Nov. 1985, 49).

Why do you think the church included such a misleading and out of date quote? 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

In order to be considered charitable, private trusts must donate at least 5% of assets a year.

Are we speaking about charitable private trusts?

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It should go without saying that charitable entities should, you know, be charitable but I guess we needed a law.  This amount seems reasonable and responsible as a minimum.

So the Church is not "charitable."  That's your position?

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

There is no law that requires the church to operate this way. There is no law that says the church needs to disclose to its members what it does with the money it takes in. Just because there is no law doesn’t make it right.

And your say-so doesn't make the Church's stewardship of its finances "wrong"

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Given the state of need in the world, I personally think it is immoral to accumulate this kind of wealth without disclosure.

This is just conclusory, because-I-say-so stuff.  

And since when is there a nexus between morality and "disclosure?"  What does that even mean?  Disclosure of what?  To whom?

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I think it is important for tax exempt entities to hoard money in this fashion. 

As I predicted just a few hours ago: "I suspect the IRS will make a finding that the Church does indeed comply with the laws governing its finances.  The discussion will then shift from 'The Church broke the law!' to oh-so-more-nebulous grumbling from armchair quarterbacks about what the Church should do (which can best be defined as 'something vague, but definitely more than the Church is doing now, 'cuz the Church is bad')."

Boy, you are proving me right.

Anyhoo, I am curious about your "hoard money" statement.  To what illicit purpose does the Church do this, in your view?  Where is the misconduct?

Thanks,

-Smac