whistleblower on Church finances

[Calm]

Here is the quote:

Quote

Well, we simply think that that information belongs to those who made the contribution, and not to the world. That’s the only thing. Yes. 

Here is an analysis including more context to the quote:

http://www.conflictofjustice.com/gordon-hinckley-tithing-tithe-payers/

Here is the interview:

http://www.mscbc.org/hinckley.htm

 

Edited December 18, 2019 by Calm

[california boy]

35 minutes ago, Calm said:

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.

 

26 minutes ago, JAHS said:

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. 

 

If the  numbers are inaccurate, then why doesn't the church or Ensign Peak say so and  just. release the real numbers   The mistrust comes in when the Church is not upfront in what it is doing.  

If the Church feels like, as some have stated, it is just being good stewards of funds, then they have nothing to be ashamed about or hide.  In fact, wouldn't it be a plus for the Church to have managed its finances so well?

[smac97]

Lars Nielsen just posted this on Newsweek (not the most well-trafficked site, but oh well): MORMONS, HERE'S WHY I PUBLISHED THE REVELATIONS ABOUT THE LDS CHURCH'S $100 BILLION STOCKPILE | OPINION

Pretty meh, but I thought some might be interested in reading it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

If the  numbers are inaccurate, then why doesn't the church or Ensign Peak say so and  just. release the real numbers  

That is a very different question than if something is antimormon.  I am not particularly interested in secondguessing the Church when I don't have that info.

Quote

The mistrust comes in when the Church is not upfront in what it is doing.  

Some mistrust comes in when the Church isn't fully open.  But a huge amount of mistrust is created by intentionally misrepresenting the Church.

For example, the Church imo has been quite open about the proxy baptism program in the last several decades.  Intentional misrepresentations have created imo mistrust that didn't need to be there.

Edited December 18, 2019 by Calm

[california boy]

22 minutes ago, provoman said:

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.

I think the Church has learned over and over again, in the long run, hiding things doesn't really work. People find out eventually.  The mistrust comes from not being open about things.  Not telling members about the billions in surplus is a conscious choice Church leaders made.  If people don't want to be associated with a Church that stockpiles billions of dollars rather than use that money for other purposes, then they should leave the Church and find one that fits their personal beliefs on how God's Church should be structured.  I don't think members should think that the Church uses all of it's money for operating expenses and the surplus given to humanitarian causes when that is not the case.

[alter idem]

On 12/17/2019 at 12:44 PM, Calm said:

Maybe some have a sense that right now is a time we (as in themselves or their local community) need to be saved,  but the Church is deciding our troubles don’t merit their aid. 

And maybe there is some fear that the leaders will always look at the future as worse than the now, so hoard for the ultimate disaster that never happens. 

I don’t think that is a realistic view, but given we can’t really conceive of what 100$ billion means nor do we have access to comparisons of income vs expenses...I can see why some might have that reaction. 

Is it certain the church is worth 100 billion?  What I've read, that number came from the whistle blower, but others put the wealth at 32 billion (which is a lot of money, but not as much as 100 b.)  Personally, I'd check and recheck everything that whistle blower says.

[california boy]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

That is a very different question than if something is antimormon.  I am not particularly interested in secondguessing the Church when I don't have that info.

Some mistrust comes in when the Church isn't fully open.  But a huge amount of mistrust is created by intentionally misrepresenting the Church.

For example, the Church imo has been quite open about the proxy baptism program in the last several decades.  Intentional misrepresentations have created imo mistrust that didn't need to be there.

But these are situations that Church leaders have created themselves and have a lot of control over..  How they handle it is what fuels anti Mormon actions.  Honestly facing your accusers and presenting facts goes a long way to diffusing situations and taking the wind out of their sails.

There was recently a journalist that called Pete Buttibigieg a xxxliar.  He could have just let the firestorm die down.  Instead, he asked for an interview with his accuser and sat down with him in a very civil way to clear up misconceptions.  I found that brilliant and admirable. He came out being more trusted and more reasonable in his approach.

[provoman]

32 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think the Church has learned over and over again, in the long run, hiding things doesn't really work. People find out eventually.  The mistrust comes from not being open about things.  Not telling members about the billions in surplus is a conscious choice Church leaders made.  If people don't want to be associated with a Church that stockpiles billions of dollars rather than use that money for other purposes, then they should leave the Church and find one that fits their personal beliefs on how God's Church should be structured.  I don't think members should think that the Church uses all of it's money for operating expenses and the surplus given to humanitarian causes when that is not the case.

Thank you for the response. I think our responses support the idea that whether harm has been done is a matter of opinion and/or a matter of religious opinion.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

But these are situations that Church leaders have created themselves and have a lot of control over..  How they handle it is what fuels anti Mormon actions.  Honestly facing your accusers and presenting facts goes a long way to diffusing situations and taking the wind out of their sails.

Even so, it is a lot more complicated in my view than just placing all the responsibility for the mistrust on the Church's not opening up their financial documents or other info to public view.  There are numerous factors involved going back a long way.  Saying "the mistrust comes from not being open about things" or to imply the only fuel for antimormon activity comes from the actions of the Church  is a massive oversimplification imo...approaching blaming the victim at times.

The Church has imo contributed to an environment where some members are prone to distrust and this includes in more ways than just lack of openness (certain authoritarian practices contribute imo).  Church members themselves have also imo contributed by promoting a culture where many idealize leadership and the Church and therefore the implications of mistakes get blown out of proportion, sometimes way out.  The general surrounding culture going way back of mistrust and dislike of Saints (citing polls for the last half century at least as well as government actions before that) that existed and exists for a variety of reasons is another contributor.  Over the decades antimormons have contributed by lying or omitting needed information (like the antimormon trope 'Jesus is Satan's brother' omits the belief every human is a child of God or the promotion of fear of Saints doing genealogy work because we baptized others' ancestors often omits it is not a forced conversion where the baptism is viewed automatically valid whether or not there is consent) while fanning the flames of mistrust and hate.

All that cannot be fairly laid at the door of 'if only the Church had been more open'.  Maybe less would have happened, but all of the hate and doubt...no way.

Edited December 19, 2019 by Calm

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Lars Nielsen just posted this on Newsweek (not the most well-trafficked site, but oh well): MORMONS, HERE'S WHY I PUBLISHED THE REVELATIONS ABOUT THE LDS CHURCH'S $100 BILLION STOCKPILE | OPINION

Pretty meh, but I thought some might be interested in reading it.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think he came off better before he tried to explain.  

[JAHS]

51 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think the Church has learned over and over again, in the long run, hiding things doesn't really work. People find out eventually.  The mistrust comes from not being open about things.  Not telling members about the billions in surplus is a conscious choice Church leaders made.  If people don't want to be associated with a Church that stockpiles billions of dollars rather than use that money for other purposes, then they should leave the Church and find one that fits their personal beliefs on how God's Church should be structured.  I don't think members should think that the Church uses all of it's money for operating expenses and the surplus given to humanitarian causes when that is not the case.

I don't know any members who think that. Most members think that the church tries to use the funds in a workable balance between operating costs, humanitarian aid, and saving for the future. 
It's called "Provident living" which is defined as being "wise, frugal, prudent, making provision for the future while attending to immediate needs." 
Members are taught to live this way as well as the church organization.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I don't think members should think that the Church uses all of it's money for operating expenses and the surplus given to humanitarian causes when that is not the case.

I don't think they should think that either.

Quote

 

Church members are taught to “gradually build a financial reserve by regularly saving [a portion of their income]” (Providing in the Lord’s Way: Summary of a Leader’s Guide to Welfare [booklet, 2009], 2). The Church applies this same principle in its own savings and investments. In addition to food and emergency supplies, the Church also sets aside funds each year for future needs. These funds are added to Church reserves, which include stocks and bonds, taxable businesses, agricultural interests and commercial and residential property. Investments can be accessed in times of hardship or to meet the emerging needs of a growing, global faith in its mission to preach the gospel to all nations and prepare for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ 

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-finances-and-a-growing-global-church

 

 

 

[alter idem]

Personally, I'm really impressed that the church has managed to attain so much wealth(I hope it 100 Billion), considering we were apparently seriously in debt around 1960, then again around 1900 and when Joseph Smith died he was up to his eyeballs in debt and the members driven out of the United States.  We've come a long way and I feel more safe knowing the church is careful with funds, making sure there is a rainy day fund, what with all the temple building and the growth of the church around the world.

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, alter idem said:

Personally, I'm really impressed that the church has managed to attain so much wealth(I hope it 100 Billion), considering we were apparently seriously in debt around 1960, then again around 1900 and when Joseph Smith died he was up to his eyeballs in debt and the members driven out of the United States.  We've come a long way and I feel more safe knowing the church is careful with funds, making sure there is a rainy day fund, what with all the temple building and the growth of the church around the world.

I am also gratified that those who have access to and control of the Church's wealth are not enriching themselves.  

Nobody is getting rich off the Church (except for people like Craig Vernon and Tim Kosnoff) (oh, and Kalani Sitake).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Maidservant]

 

18 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

 the faithful to withhold payment

The faithful, by definition, would not take up this offer. It's not about proving something or getting a gold star or even obedience, but it's about the knowledge one receives as they try the Lord (faith) and find out what tithing is really all about by experience (ful). I'm not saying that someone who doesn't pay tithing (in or out of the church), cannot be considered faithful and participatory on many other matters or laws within the gospel and church, but the faithfulness of the specific law of tithing seems to require the paying of tithing and the subsequent outpourings. It's not about supporting some vague Church entity, but about my personal growth and blessing in time and eternity. (And blessing the covenant community entire.)

Quote

 declare their tithes

I have only ever been asked , once a year, ceremonially, if I am a full tithe payer. My word has always been taken; and I've never had to prove it.  If I am comparing, then I could take the Church's declaration (such as the audit report or whatever) on the same level of trust.

Quote

and open their pantry doors and share their balance sheets to justify need to relief society presidents and bishoprics. 

This sounds like a personal story, or someone(s) you know, or perhaps a recorded story. That sounds invasive.

I personally have never had to do that by even a shade. I have been asked multiple times over the years (the most recent being today when my RS prez visited me, at Christmas/winter season and their awareness that I am a single mom that recently made a move and am still looking for work) . . . if I needed help, and I either have replied yes or no. If yes, they moved upon that immediately. In my particular case, I have always been approached kindly first, I have never had to request, nor would my (supposed) dignity allow me to.

8 hours ago, rockpond said:

Your tithing is sacrifice enough for the blessings of heaven.

I know your comment is specifically about mission costs (which the ward is paying for my son already as I am not able); but more generally if ever I was told I no longer had to pay tithing, I would beg to be allowed. And even if I accepted the parameters of a new era, I would be very sad to see the joy of tithing go.

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So you may be correct in stating that the workers at the storehouse don't deny a food order signed by the bishop as the ecclesiastic leader, but that's hardly the same thing as saying that a person gets whatever they want.

Can only speak for myself, but over the many years, all I know is on direction of the bishop, or sometimes on her own but with notifying the bishop, the RS comes to my house, I check mark all the things I need/want and how many, on the order form (have never been told no, except if like certain fruit wasn't available at the moment), and then since we do/did live near a storehouse and I was able, I went to pick up the stuff myself on an appointed day.

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

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)?

Tithing is often considered a requirement to receive blessings, but I really have come to understand that it IS a blessing itself, so if a body wants that particular privilege--the privilege of paying tithing--then they need to covenant in baptism and become a part of Christ's church. Don't get me wrong, I'm liberal in my views regarding heaven in that I think we carry it on our backs wherever we go, if that's how we want to live (in a heavenly way), so to me it's not about who gets in where, later in an afterlife. So as time and eternity continues to progress into greater Zion unity, I'm confident that the Muslim and the Krishnas and the atheists and whoever will be a part. And I'm not particularly saying you aren't part of Christ's church in a universal sense (in my personal opinion), but I'm only trying to answer in the sense of the whole thing that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has going on and their commitment to the order and authority of priesthood and whatnot and of which tithing is part and parcel.  My opinion on tithing is not about getting into heaven per se, but again the bid for the privilege of tithe-paying itself.  Just some thoughts.

Edited December 19, 2019 by Maidservant

[smac97]

Another opinion piece in the Deseret News:

Quote

Is the Church of Jesus Christ rich, or is it enriching?
By Boyd Matheson
Opinion Editor  Dec 18, 2019, 1:55pm MST

You could argue that The Washington Post ran a misleading piece about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, complete with a misleading headline that the “Mormon Church” misled members on a $100 billion tax-exempt investment fund.

The headline was based on a former employee of a church-integrated auxiliary, Ensign Peak Advisors. The claim seems to be centered on the idea that the private foundation had not distributed 5% of its assets annually as required by the IRS.

Peter J. Reilly, a tax expert, disputed that assertion in Forbes, saying, “Ensign is not a private foundation. It is an integrated auxiliary of a church. And there is nothing in the tax law that prevents churches from accumulating wealth.” In the same article, Paul Streckfus of the EO Tax Journal agreed, stating, “this matter does not merit IRS attention.”

Boy, I have come to appreciate this board.  We preempted the D-News!

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

37 minutes ago, alter idem said:

Personally, I'm really impressed that the church has managed to attain so much wealth(I hope it 100 Billion), considering we were apparently seriously in debt around 1960, then again around 1900 and when Joseph Smith died he was up to his eyeballs in debt and the members driven out of the United States.  We've come a long way and I feel more safe knowing the church is careful with funds, making sure there is a rainy day fund, what with all the temple building and the growth of the church around the world.

Given how vulnerable debtors can be to creditors, I think it is prudent and wise that the Church maintain a strong financial position.

[Duncan]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Another opinion piece in the Deseret News:

Boy, I have come to appreciate this board.  We preempted the D-News!

Thanks,

-Smac

Does this Peter Reilly speak for the IRS or is he some independant person?

[smac97]

KJZZ / Channel 2 interviewed a former IRS attorney, who suggests that the Church may be in trouble "if reports thus far are accurate."

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

KJZZ / Channel 2 interviewed a former IRS attorney, who suggests that the Church may be in trouble "if reports thus far are accurate."

I thought KJZZ was Channel 14 and that Channel 2 was KUTV.

And "if reports thus far are accurate" seems to be the thing that's in question, doesn't it? This "former IRS attorney" seems to be rumor mongering. That's the view from here, at least.

Edited December 19, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

53 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

 

The faithful, by definition, would not take up this offer. It's not about proving something or getting a gold star or even obedience, but it's about the knowledge one receives as they try the Lord (faith) and find out what tithing is really all about by experience (ful). I'm not saying that someone who doesn't pay tithing (in or out of the church), cannot be considered faithful and participatory on many other matters or laws within the gospel and church, but the faithfulness of the specific law of tithing seems to require the paying of tithing and the subsequent outpourings. It's not about supporting some vague Church entity, but about my personal growth and blessing in time and eternity. (And blessing the covenant community entire.)

I have only ever been asked , once a year, ceremonially, if I am a full tithe payer. My word has always been taken; and I've never had to prove it.  If I am comparing, then I could take the Church's declaration (such as the audit report or whatever) on the same level of trust.

This sounds like a personal story, or someone(s) you know, or perhaps a recorded story. That sounds invasive.

I personally have never had to do that by even a shade. I have been asked multiple times over the years (the most recent being today when my RS prez visited me, at Christmas/winter season and their awareness that I am a single mom that recently made a move and am still looking for work) . . . if I needed help, and I either have replied yes or no. If yes, they moved upon that immediately. In my particular case, I have always been approached kindly first, I have never had to request, nor would my (supposed) dignity allow me to.

I know your comment is specifically about mission costs (which the ward is paying for my son already as I am not able); but more generally if ever I was told I no longer had to pay tithing, I would beg to be allowed. And even if I accepted the parameters of a new era, I would be very sad to see the joy of tithing go.

Can only speak for myself, but over the many years, all I know is on direction of the bishop, or sometimes on her own but with notifying the bishop, the RS comes to my house, I check mark all the things I need/want and how many, on the order form (have never been told no, except if like certain fruit wasn't available at the moment), and then since we do/did live near a storehouse and I was able, I went to pick up the stuff myself on an appointed day.

Tithing is often considered a requirement to receive blessings, but I really have come to understand that it IS a blessing itself, so if a body wants that particular privilege--the privilege of paying tithing--then they need to covenant in baptism and become a part of Christ's church. Don't get me wrong, I'm liberal in my views regarding heaven in that I think we carry it on our backs wherever we go, if that's how we want to live (in a heavenly way), so to me it's not about who gets in where, later in an afterlife. So as time and eternity continues to progress into greater Zion unity, I'm confident that the Muslim and the Krishnas and the atheists and whoever will be a part. And I'm not particularly saying you aren't part of Christ's church in a universal sense (in my personal opinion), but I'm only trying to answer in the sense of the whole thing that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has going on and their commitment to the order and authority of priesthood and whatnot and of which tithing is part and parcel.  My opinion on tithing is not about getting into heaven per se, but again the bid for the privilege of tithe-paying itself.  Just some thoughts.

Beautiful words. 

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, provoman said:

 

From the Church newsroom

"We continue to welcome the opportunity to work with officials to address questions they may have."

Yes, I believe they’ll work with IRS officials to resolve the charges levied against them, to the extent required by law.  But they won’t be sharing additional information with us. 

[Teancum]

On 12/17/2019 at 9:34 AM, pogi said:

That’s an interesting prophesy!  Could you imagine that announcement at conference that we no longer need to pay tithing?  If that is indeed what they are saving up for, that would be welcome news by many.  That would allow me to start paying much more towards fast offerings if that ever happened.  I wonder how far this money would take the church if people stopped paying tithing tomorrow?

$100 billion properly managed should easily kick of $6 or $7 billion a year without touching the principle.

[rockpond]

5 hours 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?

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree that these coercive efforts shouldn’t dictate the scope of disclosure. 
 

But, I hope that our prophet will feel inclined to explain to members the reasoning for the fund and the goals for its use. 

[Tacenda]

I wonder how many members will want to clean the toilets at church now.