whistleblower on Church finances

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Will the Church broaden the perspective and release sufficient information?

I don't think coercive efforts like this should dictate the scope of disclosure of a private party's financial information.

If someone stole your bank account information, and published it to the world, would you feel obligated to "broaden the perspective" by opening up your personal finances for further public scrutiny?

Thanks,

-Smac

[provoman]

nvm

Edited December 18, 2019 by provoman

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Correct. So if Ensign Peaks generated $65 Billion in investment earnings and has spent zero dollars of interest and zero dollars of principle on any religious, charitable, or other approved reason, should it have its 501C3 status revoked? If it exists "exclusively" for those reasons but doesn't do anything at all for them, then how could we possibly say it is complying with its purpose?

I think that is exactly why the Church has this company managing some of its investments, because it "doesn't do anything at all for them". 🙄

[Navidad]

15 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Obedience to all of God's commandments (and repentance when we don't) is required to reach heaven (His heaven).  If paying a portion of your income to His church as a tithe is one of those commandments then the answer is yes. 

Thanks for your reply, but it is still confusing. I tried to tithe to the LDS church and the bishop indicated he couldn't accept my tithe. He accepts for special projects, fast offerings, etc., but not for tithing. Perhaps I am unsure what you mean by (His Heaven). I understand that heaven for the Saint has three levels, with the celestial itself being composed of three levels. I have also been told that there may very well be non-LDS Christians in both the lower two levels and the lower two levels of the Celestial Kingdom. I don't tithe to the LDS church only because I am not allowed to. If tithing to the LDS church is a requirement to "reach heaven," then how can any non-LDS Christian ever reach heaven (His heaven)?

Edited December 18, 2019 by Navidad
grammar

[mnn727]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I know the infants podcast I posted, won't sit well with true believing LDS, but just listening to Lars, he expands on the church's wealth. The 100 billion doesn't cover the other wealth in the church. The accumulation could easy be another 100 billion sum or probably much more, when you take in the land and business wealth, it could and is astounding the kind of wealth the church has. 

He also mentioned that the leadership of the church has visited his brother, and maybe him as well, can't remember, and also contacted his parents who are on an LDS mission at the moment, to have them presuade their son/sons to not go public. That doesn't sit well, but maybe it does to others.

 

Tacenda, Why do you automatically believe everything that someone who is against the Church says?

[mnn727]

58 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Likewise, Richard Nixon noted that he wasn't a crook.

Richard Nixon was NOT a crook - the worst that can be said about Nixon is that he stupidly tried to cover up his underlings sins.

[Duncan]

27 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It was a false statement. 

as in he was lying or he never actually said it?

[ksfisher]

4 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Perhaps I am unsure what you mean by (His Heaven).

I guess I'm meaning that Heaven is God's.  There is no LDS or Catholic or Methodist heaven.  Heaven is God's.  I understood what you were meaning, but I just don't like the label "LDS" heaven any more than LDS Jesus.  One faith, one Lord, one baptism.

6 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I tried to tithe to the LDS church and the bishop indicated he couldn't accept my tithe. He accepts for special projects, fast offerings, etc., but not for tithing

The bishop is correct.  The commandment to pay tithing is applicable only to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Until the time that you join the church the Lord does not require you to obey this particular commandment.

11 minutes ago, Navidad said:

If tithing to the LDS church is a requirement to "reach heaven," then how can any non-LDS Christian ever reach heaven (His heaven)?

6 ^aFor for this cause was the ^bgospel ^cpreached also to them that are ^ddead, that they might be ^ejudged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

1 Peter 4:6

Those who die without the law, who accept the gospel in the next life, will be judged according to their willingness to be obedient.  In other words as if they had been obedient.

[Thinking]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think coercive efforts like this should dictate the scope of disclosure of a private party's financial information.

If someone stole your bank account information, and published it to the world, would you feel obligated to "broaden the perspective" by opening up your personal finances for further public scrutiny?

Apples and Oranges. I take no donations and claim no tax exempt status, so it doesn't make sense to compare the exposition of my finances to those of a corporation that does take donations and does claim tax exempt status.

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

As the Church noted, “Claims being currently circulated are based on a narrow perspective and limited information.

Will the Church broaden the perspective and release sufficient information?

To disgruntled critics? Probably not.

To the IRS, should they request it? Of course.

The church's public statement on the matter essentially concluded by saying, 'bring it on.' They know they haven't done anything wrong, and they aren't afraid of the IRS.

 

[helix]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

It seems that while this post by helix got lots of reps, its points are getting somewhat ignored...especially the above one. 

Thanks.  Here is another way to summarize that Letter to an IRS Director document.  He has no evidence beyond conjecture or guessing for any of the following:

• How much tithing the church collects annually
• How much tithing the church stores and invests
• The amounts of for-profit and non-profit funds managed by Ensign
• How much money Ensign has used for various endeavors
• From which accounts the funds for Beneficial and City Creek came
• Taxes paid on these two prior funding events
• How much the church has total in investments

So what actions are justified against the church from that?

 

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Obedience to all of God's commandments (and repentance when we don't) is required to reach heaven (His heaven).  If paying a portion of your income to His church as a tithe is one of those commandments then the answer is yes. 

More detail for Navidad....

But if people have either knowingly avoided paying what they believed was a commandment or didn't believe for whatever reason it was a commandment, they still have the opportunity to repent once they accept they should be obedient.  And they would just start paying from that time, not needing to pay former missed tithing opportunities in order to be seen as obedient.  If the repentance or learning the principle happens in the next life, repentance there counts fully as well according to our doctrine...I am guessing there won't be tithes to pay to show acceptance and commitment to God and oneself as would happen here, but God will judge us then by his knowledge of what we would do if we could imo.

[california boy]

Does anyone believe that exposing $100 billion investment portfolio is harmful or anti-Mormon.

If so, why.

If not, then what difference does it make if a whistleblower came forward

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, helix said:

So what actions are justified against the church from that?

Or even what judgments are justified against the Church from that? (Since many are judging that the Church hoards and this is immoral based on the speculation by Nielsen).

Whether or not it is hoarding depends a great deal on what are the actual income and expenses of the Church (additional info of what other longterm assets the Church has are helpful, but those two are most important imo).

There is a huge difference if one assumes the Church takes in 7 billion a year and uses 6 billion and if the Church takes in 35 billion a year and uses 34 billion (assumption is based on the claim there is 1 billion excess deposited in Ensign each year, 35 billion is from Mike Quinn's research).

Not saying either are correct, just that undocumented assumptions result in widely different scenarios in this case (Quinn documents his stuff to the best of my knowledge which is pretty superficial since I don't have his book, just saying the other stuff is undocumented)

Edited December 18, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

Does anyone believe that exposing $100 billion investment portfolio is harmful or anti-Mormon.

If so, why.

If not, then what difference does it make if a whistleblower came forward

It is anti-Mormon if speculations are presented as fact and then used to condemn the Church as a fraud and its leaders as irresponsible or criminal, imo.

It is anti-Mormon in that case because it is intentionally misrepresenting the Church's behaviour in order to create doubt and mistrust of it and its leaders.

Edited December 18, 2019 by Calm

[JAHS]

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

Does anyone believe that exposing $100 billion investment portfolio is harmful or anti-Mormon.

If so, why.

If not, then what difference does it make if a whistleblower came forward

Because people and the media are only going to remember the accusation made against the church.
And even if the church is vindicated by a favorable response from the IRS people will still argue against that decision based on their own perception and bias of what was claimed in the first place. 

 

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Quote

I don't think coercive efforts like this should dictate the scope of disclosure of a private party's financial information.

If someone stole your bank account information, and published it to the world, would you feel obligated to "broaden the perspective" by opening up your personal finances for further public scrutiny?

Apples and Oranges.

Special pleading.

22 minutes ago, Thinking said:

I take no donations and claim no tax exempt status,

So what?  You itemize your taxes, right?  You don't pay all the taxes you could, right?  If so, why can't I argue that your itemized taxes gives me the right to examine your finances?

22 minutes ago, Thinking said:

so it doesn't make sense to compare the exposition of my finances to those of a corporation that does take donations and does claim tax exempt status.

I think the analogy holds.  The Church is a private entity.  Idle curiosity is not sufficient grounds for bystanders to demand extra-legal disclosure of its finances.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Navidad]

35 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I guess I'm meaning that Heaven is God's.  There is no LDS or Catholic or Methodist heaven.  Heaven is God's.  I understood what you were meaning, but I just don't like the label "LDS" heaven any more than LDS Jesus.  One faith, one Lord, one baptism.

The bishop is correct.  The commandment to pay tithing is applicable only to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Until the time that you join the church the Lord does not require you to obey this particular commandment.

6 ^aFor for this cause was the ^bgospel ^cpreached also to them that are ^ddead, that they might be ^ejudged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

1 Peter 4:6

Those who die without the law, who accept the gospel in the next life, will be judged according to their willingness to be obedient.  In other words as if they had been obedient.

Thanks so much. I appreciate your time to help me understand.

[provoman]

26 minutes ago, california boy said:

Does anyone believe that exposing $100 billion investment portfolio is harmful or anti-Mormon.

If so, why.

If not, then what difference does it make if a whistleblower came forward

Some have posted in this thread that they are leaving the Church over the EPA funds.  Another posted they instructed their children to stop paying tithing until President Nelson makes some sort of statement.

So is it harmful, it seems it is a matter of religious opinion as to the harm.

In a reddit thread a spouse lamented of having to hold her tongue, because the husband - like many others see no wrong doing based on the information presented. Marital strife isn't helpful, in my opinion.

Edited December 18, 2019 by provoman

[Amulek]

46 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Whether it is obeying the letter of the law and obeying the spirit of the law are two different things.

Huh? Violating the spirit of which law? Seriously, which section of the IRS code are you referring to?

 

Quote

Likewise, just because what it is doing might be legal doesn't mean that what it is doing should be legal.

It shouldn't be legal for churches to invest and make money off those investments? And if they don't use those monies in the way you deem appropriate, within the time-frame you desire, then they should lose their tax exempt status? This is precisely the sort of reason for why church and state should operate in separate spheres. 

But hey, if you want to start taxing churches - go ahead. Then the gloves can finally come off and churches can start operating freely and directly in all walks of life - especially when it comes to things like endorsing candidates for public office. If you liked President Trump, you're going to love President Jeffress. 

 

 

[Thinking]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

why can't I argue that your itemized taxes gives me the right to examine your finances?

I don't take donations and claim to use those for charitable purposes.

BTW, we take the standard deduction because it's more than our itemized deductions.

[poptart]

If anything comes of this, think we'll ever see something like this jem?

 

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Thinking said:

I don't take donations and claim to use those for charitable purposes.

That seems pretty arbitrary.  

3 minutes ago, Thinking said:

BTW, we take the standard deduction because it's more than our itemized deductions.

Still seems as legit a reason as is often given for strangers snooping into the Church's finances.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

59 minutes ago, Duncan said:

as in he was lying or he never actually said it?

There is also the possibility it was a careless comment seeing things through his own experience and not the typical member's.

IIRC, he didn't say they were transparent, but that only members had the right to ask that they be made transparent with the implication that members didn't want them to be.  But I may be mixing up comments.

Edited December 18, 2019 by Calm

[Thinking]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

That seems pretty arbitrary. 

Really? This entire discussion is about how the Church obtains and appropriates money, and you (an educated well spoken individual) thinks that it's somehow arbitrary that I differentiate how I receive my money from how the Church receives its money.