whistleblower on Church finances

[Bernard Gui]

Another Elder Neal A. Maxwell test. There will be more to come.

Edited December 19, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[california boy]

4 hours ago, JAHS said:

The difference is that I don't care what the amount is. People who do care are not paying tithing for the right reason. I have done what I have promised God I would do by paying it. What happens to it after it leaves my hands is up to the church leaders who I trust, and who will be held accountable to God if they misuse it. 

Then you shouldn't be concerned about any of this.  Right?

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I can't speak for people outside the Church, but for this person inside the Church, my reaction was a bit like this: 

I am not getting why members view any of this as being some kind of attack on the Church.  It is looking like no one cares that this whistleblower came forth

[california boy]

57 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Any person with two brain cells should know the church does stock pile funds for future use.  To give all the surplus funds to the poor sounds good in theory but that would put the church in a position that it lives day by day and year to year and at risk of any downturn.  We would not encourage any family to use their income for expenses and any excess give to the poor rather than put it in savings.  Financial ruin would be almost certain down the road for any family that does not prepare for the future and stock up.  Sure give some of it to the poor but the greater part you put into savings.  The Church would be wise to do the same. 

And yet another faithful member who is not concerned about the whistleblower revealing the 100 billion dollar reserve.  I am beginning to wonder why 27 pages on this issue.  No one seems to care one way or the other.  Most seemed pleased with the revealed information.  Yet many seem to be attacking the whistleblower for revealing this good news.

[Calm]

56 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am not getting why members view any of this as being some kind of attack on the Church.  It is looking like no one cares that this whistleblower came forth

Really?  And yet we have members on the board that are saying they will be resigning or are no longer paying tithing and trying to get their kids to stop paying it.

Because there are some who look on the information provided as exposing wise stewardship by church leaders doesn't mean the others who are disturbed by it don't exist or that those who are okay with it aren't troubled about the hardship this is creating for those who are.

[DonBradley]

53 minutes ago, california boy said:

And yet another faithful member who is not concerned about the whistleblower revealing the 100 billion dollar reserve.  I am beginning to wonder why 27 pages on this issue.  No one seems to care one way or the other.  Most seemed pleased with the revealed information.  Yet many seem to be attacking the whistleblower for revealing this good news.

I see absolutely no harm in a whistleblower coming forward. Our society protects whistleblowers for good reason, and it's the right thing to do.

The church's fund may not have flouted any tax regulations, and if so, it will all get worked out. Or the church's fund may have flouted tax regulations, in which case things will be done with greater exactness in the future, the problem will be solved, and the fund's managers will take greater care to ensure that its tithing-derived monies are put toward religious/non-profit uses.

Thus, in the long run, no actual harm can come from a whistleblower coming forward, because it will either reveal that there is no problem or it will help to correct the problem.

On the other hand, harm may actually come from how people react to whistleblower's report, since many people may be disillusioned by it and/or use it against the church. Or good may come of it for similar reasons. The church has demonstrated a great ability to learn from public backlash and from the disillusionment of its own members.

The enormous backlash against the church's advocacy of Prop 8 was a source of shock to church leaders and led to them moving pretty far from repeating that sort of action again. The disaffection of many young women in the church has led to some real soul searching and "studying out" on the part of church leaders that is positively impacting women's roles in the church. The widespread reaction against the policy on gay families was almost certainly part of the church leaders later, and rather quickly, reconsidering that policy.

Historically, about half of the church's efforts to help the less fortunate have been initiated on a grassroots level. The United Order had precursors in Sidney Rigdon's congregation. The Relief Society was a grassroots project of the women of Navuoo. The Church Welfare Program began on the stake level. And the Humanitarian Fund started because members of the church kept donating, without being asked, after a church-wide fast for tsunami victims, and the church needed a place to put those funds.

My point? The church is actually high responsive to the feelings of its members, and it has a long history--going back to the beginning--of turning grassroots motivation to help the less fortunate into new institutional directions for the church itself. The heightened awareness of the means the church has and the good it can do therefore can't hurt in possibly prompting further institutional consideration of how to help those in need. After all, "help the poor and needy" is one of the church's fundamental goals, part of its fourfold mission.

BTW, CB, I love your avatar. I love all things Da Vinci, Renaissance, and hermetic.

Don

[DonBradley]

5 hours ago, JAHS said:

The difference is that I don't care what the amount is. People who do care are not paying tithing for the right reason. I have done what I have promised God I would do by paying it. 

Oh, I don't agree with that at all. That assumes that morality is just a matter of abstract obligations and has nothing to do with consequences. I believe paying tithing is a good thing---that's not what I'm objecting to in what you say.

I'm objecting to the moral logic you're appealing to--one in which actual consequences for human lives are inconsequential and all that matters is obediently keeping rules and honestly keeping promises. We see the ultimate fruits of that kind of logic in the story of Jephthah and his daughter in the Hebrew Bible, where keeping a promise was more important than love or consequences to human beings. Read that story and see if promise-keeping without regard to consequences--what you say you believe in above--is actually the moral logic you ultimately advocate and live by. When push comes to shove, I don't believe you that keeping promises without regard to consequences is really what you believe in, even if you fall back on that position rhetorically here.

Mortal life under the veil requires us to learn to make difficult moral choices, as God does. If everything was really supposed to be simple black-and-white, it's-always-obvious-what-the-simple-right-thing-to-do-is, then God made a mistake in putting the veil there and forcing us to make judgments in complex and unclear situations.

Using such moral judgment, at least one of the reasons for paying tithing is the good the church will do with it (note reasons, plural - it's silly to say there is only one true reason to pay tithing - there are lots of them).

Don

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I am not getting why members view any of this as being some kind of attack on the Church.

I could be wrong, but I suspect that that opinion may have something to do with the fact that the 'whistleblower' accused the Church of fraud and, in doing so, consciously adopted a name for his enterprise that is a variation on a familiar-to-some 'anti' project.

To draw an analogy, I may think that old-school Evangelical attacks on the Church might be groundless, thin on facts, dishonest, inconsistent or even silly, but that doesn't mean that those propagating them don't intend for them to actually be attacks.

[rodheadlee]

15 hours ago, Teancum said:

If the government fails the cash will be worthless as well.

Don't you think the prophet Seer and Revelator might get a little Advance warning on that.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Has anyone posted the First Presidency's response:

Quote

We take seriously the responsibility to care for the tithes and donations received from members. The vast majority of these funds are used immediately to meet the needs of the growing Church including more meetinghouses, temples, education, humanitarian work and missionary efforts throughout the world. Over many years, a portion is methodically safeguarded through wise financial management and the building of a prudent reserve for the future. This is a sound doctrinal and financial principle taught by the Savior in the Parable of the Talents and lived by the Church and its members. All Church funds exist for no other reason than to support the Church’s divinely appointed mission.

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.

 

Edited December 19, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan

[10THAmendment]

I think God cares what happens to tithing money paid by faithful people trying to follow Him.

I don’t think he’s down with maintaining for profit businesses with that money. Can you imagine if the widow’s mite was used to fund some millionaire’s private business? That would be a flip the table over moment for Jesus. 

[smac97]

10 hours ago, JAHS said:

The difference is that I don't care what the amount is. People who do care are not paying tithing for the right reason.

With respect, I can't agree with this.  I think it can be entirely appropriate to be attentive to, and concerned about, the Church's finances.  

I think the issue here is how some people are responding to this issue.  The time, place and manner in which we voice concerns and questions matter.  A lot.  So publicly disparaging the leaders of the Church (as I have seen elsewhere) is not the way to go.  Issuing public ultimatums and demands to the leaders of the Church is not the way to go.  Disobeying the Law of Tithing is not the way to go.  Setting one's self up as a voice of authority alternative and superior to the leaders of the Church is not the way to go.  Reflexively spouting off in anger (and mostly ignorance) is not the way to go.  Persuading others to do these things is not the way to go.

Also important is what could be called a "rebuttable presumption" in favor of the leaders of the Church.  Look at the condition of the Church.  Look at the buildings.  The temples.  The missionary program.  The humanitarian and welfare efforts.  The educational endeavors.  Look at the area local leaders and members who labor in callings, all of whom donate their time and work for free.  Look at the comparatively miniscule number of general authorities who receive remuneration.  There are what, 130 or so of them?  For a church with 16 million members?  And many of these men took a substantial pay cut to serve in the Church?  And they often are called to serve while at the point in their careers where they have a peak earning capacity?  And they may well end up working full-time for the Church well past the age they had planned to retire (in the case of apostles, they continue to work until they literally die)?

Look at the lifestyles of the leadership of the Church.  They have access to and control of, apparently, tens of billions of dollars.  Are these men living profligately?  Private islands in the Bahamas?  Mansions?  Jets?  Yachts?  Lavish parties?  Shopping sprees?  Globetrotting with massive entourages?  Do we have any indication that they misappropriate sacred funds for their own personal use?  Any evidence that they have siphoned money from the Church and re-directed it to friends and family?  To secret accounts in the Cayman Islands?

Look at the financial oversight framework the Church has built.  We have annual reports.  We have periodic assurances from the leaders of the Church that it "has been living within its means."  We have the Council on the Disposition of Tithes, the Budget Committee, the Appropriations Committee, the Church Budget Office, the Finance and Records Department, the Auditing Department, the Audit Committee, the Investment Policy Committee, the Deseret Management Corporation and its board of directors, the First Presidency of the Church, the quorum of twelve apostles, and the Presiding Bishopric, "other boards and committees to oversee the management of the Church's investments and reserves," and on and on.

Even the leaks of information we have seem to consistently reinforce the idea the Church is on solid financial footing, and that there is no skullduggery afoot.  Consider this assessment of the Church's finances by D. Michael Quinn:

Quote

“It’s as spiritual [for Latter-day Saints] to give alms to the poor,” Quinn told Bloomberg Businessweek in 2012, “... as it is to make a million dollars.”

On that last score, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been wildly successful, says Quinn, author of the newly published “Mormon Hierarchy: Wealth & Corporate Power.”

The church, launched in 1830 in upstate New York with six members, counts nearly 16 million members worldwide — and untold billions in assets.
...
Quinn estimates — and estimating is about the best even a top-notch researcher can do — the church took in about $33 billion in tithing in 2010, based on a model of projected growth rates that followed a consistent pattern starting in the 1950s. It earns another $15 billion annually, he says, in returns on its profit-making investments. (The Bloomberg Businessweek piece from five years ago cited an investigation pegging the LDS Church’s worth at $40 billion.)

No matter the precise bottom line, these figures represent an astonishing accomplishment, Quinn says.

“It is an American success story without parallel,” the longtime historian says in an interview. “No institution, no church, no business, no nonprofit organization in America has had this kind of history.”

Yet LDS general authorities — from the most senior apostle to the lowest-ranking Seventy — all receive the same yearly “living allowance”: $120,000. Though the church has enormous wealth, he {Quinn} says, none of the leaders is getting rich off it.
...
{Quinn} says the LDS Church’s financial trajectory, as well as the self-sacrificing actions of its hierarchy, is “an enormously faith-promoting story.”

If everyday Mormons could grasp “the larger picture,” he says, they would “breathe a sigh of relief and see the church is not a profit-making business.”

Given what we know, haven't the General Authorities earned the benefit of the doubt?  A rebuttable presumption that they are doing their jobs fairly well?  I think so.

Note, however, that I am advocating a rebuttable presumption.  We should not put the leaders of the Church on pedastals.  We cannot presume they are infallible.  But if and when an individual develops a reasonable concern about the administration of the Church, there are ways to go about it that do not involve speaking evil of the Lord's anointed, speaking or acting against the Church, usurping authority, fomenting anger and discord in the Church, and so on

Quote

I have done what I have promised God I would do by paying it. What happens to it after it leaves my hands is up to the church leaders who I trust, and who will be held accountable to God if they misuse it. 

I agree with everything you say here.

However, I also think members of the Church have the right to express concerns about the use of sacred funds.  I also think such concerns should be expressed in the appropriate time, place, and manner.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 19, 2019 by smac97

[smac97]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

And yet another faithful member who is not concerned about the whistleblower revealing the 100 billion dollar reserve.  I am beginning to wonder why 27 pages on this issue.  No one seems to care one way or the other.  Most seemed pleased with the revealed information.  Yet many seem to be attacking the whistleblower for revealing this good news.

The nastiness exhibited by the whistleblower's brother (who is collaborating with the whistleblower) has been offputting.

Also, I think there is a wee bit of irony in the whistleblower's position.  "Hey!  I'm publicly accusing the Church of not spending billions of dollars!  The proverbial 'Widow's Mite!'  Oh, the humanity!  The Church should be punished!  Oh, and also, I want my cut!  I want several billion dollars' worth of the Widow's Mite for myself!  Somehow, it is a horrible moral failing for the Church to collect this money as tithes, but it's totally upright and honorable for me to seek billions of dollars of these tithes for my personal use and benefit!  I earned it!"

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

36 minutes ago, 10THAmendment said:

I think God cares what happens to tithing money paid by faithful people trying to follow Him.

I don’t think he’s down with maintaining for profit businesses with that money. Can you imagine if the widow’s mite was used to fund some millionaire’s private business? That would be a flip the table over moment for Jesus. 

Who is the "millionaire" relative to the Church?  Who are the people who are becoming enriched by misusing the Widow's Mite?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

4 hours ago, DonBradley said:

Oh, I don't agree with that at all. That assumes that morality is just a matter of abstract obligations and has nothing to do with consequences. I believe paying tithing is a good thing---that's not what I'm objecting to in what you say.

I'm objecting to the moral logic you're appealing to--one in which actual consequences for human lives are inconsequential and all that matters is obediently keeping rules and honestly keeping promises. We see the ultimate fruits of that kind of logic in the story of Jephthah and his daughter in the Hebrew Bible, where keeping a promise was more important than love or consequences to human beings. Read that story and see if promise-keeping without regard to consequences--what you say you believe in above--is actually the moral logic you ultimately advocate and live by. When push comes to shove, I don't believe you that keeping promises without regard to consequences is really what you believe in, even if you fall back on that position rhetorically here.

Mortal life under the veil requires us to learn to make difficult moral choices, as God does. If everything was really supposed to be simple black-and-white, it's-always-obvious-what-the-simple-right-thing-to-do-is, then God made a mistake in putting the veil there and forcing us to make judgments in complex and unclear situations.

Using such moral judgment, at least one of the reasons for paying tithing is the good the church will do with it (note reasons, plural - it's silly to say there is only one true reason to pay tithing - there are lots of them).

Don

Hmm.  I responded to the same post as Don did, but didn't see Don's post until after I posted mine.  I did not mean to pile on.

Thanks,

-Smac

[provoman]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

Then you shouldn't be concerned about any of this.  Right?

 

6 hours ago, california boy said:

I am not getting why members view any of this as being some kind of attack on the Church.  It is looking like no one cares that this whistleblower came forth

 

6 hours ago, california boy said:

And yet another faithful member who is not concerned about the whistleblower revealing the 100 billion dollar reserve.  I am beginning to wonder why 27 pages on this issue.  No one seems to care one way or the other.  Most seemed pleased with the revealed information.  Yet many seem to be attacking the whistleblower for revealing this good news.

Harm to others has been documented in this thread.

Do you care when others are harmed?

 

[10THAmendment]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Who is the "millionaire" relative to the Church?  Who are the people who are becoming enriched by misusing the Widow's Mite?

Thanks,

-Smac

The church can easily be seen as the millionaire in my analogy. They used tithing to build a multi billion dollar shopping mall for heaven’s sake (which they lied about). 

Edited December 19, 2019 by 10THAmendment

[pogi]

5 hours ago, DonBradley said:

I'm objecting to the moral logic you're appealing to--one in which actual consequences for human lives are inconsequential and all that matters is obediently keeping rules and honestly keeping promises.

I don’t know if JAHS was suggesting that consequences don’t matter (he can speak for himself), but that we may not have a clear understanding of the purposes of the Church and the Lord in all things.  People are making judgments based on very little information, and perhaps JAHS is hinting at the principle of obedience in faith as exemplified by Adam - “I know not, save the Lord commanded me.”  We simply are not privy to the the full intent of the Church or the mind of the Lord in this matter, but I feel that we have been given enough to know that it is being saved for wise and righteous purposes and is in good hands.  

The Church has been clear on the purpose of these funds.  People will disagree on how much is too much to save for those purposes, but I agree that in paying tithing there is righteousness in saying “I know not, save the Lord commanded me.”  

Edited December 19, 2019 by pogi

[pogi]

17 minutes ago, 10THAmendment said:

The church can easily be seen as the millionaire in my analogy. They used tithing to build a multi billion dollar shopping mall for heaven’s sake (which they lied about). 

The Church is a multi-billionaire. 

I think it is strange how people get upset when a charitable organization becomes successful and puts itself in a financially secure position to do much good.  If the Church had not invested and only had a few billion in reserves, people would not be calling foul.  Why is success (especially when the funds sole purpose is to do good and CAN'T be used for personal gain) seen as immoral?  Makes no sense.  We should be congratulating them and other organizations should be taking notes, so they to can be more successful.  

I know, I know, it is the "hoarding" that people abhor.  But that is how these funds were made - saving, investing, and interest.  If the Church had spent it all and not saved or invested, then they would not have been as successful and the amount of good that can be done on a rainy-day would have been significantly reduced.

Also, there is no evidence that the Ensign is funded only by tithing and we shouldn't be stating as fact that the mall was funded from tithing money.  As Helix noted previously:

• Quote

   

  • The source of the $1B in tithing is a single PowerPoint slide, which doesn't call it tithing, but rather money "granted to [Ensign] on an annual basis" (page 43).
  • It further doesn't state whether some or all of this $1B came from non-profit or for-profit sources.

   

   

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, 10THAmendment said:

The church can easily be seen as the millionaire in my analogy.

Really?  "The church" can live large?  Can own and use a jet?  Live in a mansion?  

Perhaps you could try again.  Who is the millionaire?  Who are the living, breathing individuals who are enriching themselves via the Widow's Mite?

Thanks,

-Smac

[JAHS]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

5 hours ago, DonBradley said:

Oh, I don't agree with that at all. That assumes that morality is just a matter of abstract obligations and has nothing to do with consequences. I believe paying tithing is a good thing---that's not what I'm objecting to in what you say.

I'm objecting to the moral logic you're appealing to--one in which actual consequences for human lives are inconsequential and all that matters is obediently keeping rules and honestly keeping promises. We see the ultimate fruits of that kind of logic in the story of Jephthah and his daughter in the Hebrew Bible, where keeping a promise was more important than love or consequences to human beings. Read that story and see if promise-keeping without regard to consequences--what you say you believe in above--is actually the moral logic you ultimately advocate and live by. When push comes to shove, I don't believe you that keeping promises without regard to consequences is really what you believe in, even if you fall back on that position rhetorically here.

Mortal life under the veil requires us to learn to make difficult moral choices, as God does. If everything was really supposed to be simple black-and-white, it's-always-obvious-what-the-simple-right-thing-to-do-is, then God made a mistake in putting the veil there and forcing us to make judgments in complex and unclear situations.

Using such moral judgment, at least one of the reasons for paying tithing is the good the church will do with it (note reasons, plural - it's silly to say there is only one true reason to pay tithing - there are lots of them).

Don

Hmm.  I responded to the same post as Don did, but didn't see Don's post until after I posted mine.  I did not mean to pile on.

Thanks,

-Smac

My response to both of you is that I agree there are other good reasons for paying tithing, but  what I meant by what I said is that in my opinion the number 1 reason for paying tithing is because I love God and want to obey His commandments, including the law of tithing. That way if the money is used for reasons I might not agree with I will not be disappointed nor will I withhold my tithing because of it.  With everything else that is going on in my life I can't be concerned about what the church does with what I donate. I have to trust the church leaders and God, at least for this one thing.   It works for me.  

[alter idem]

12 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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

When I've cleaned the church, we weren't asked to clean the toilets (not that I'm above that, I clean toilets all the time);  but I assume it's because we have regular paid cleaners at our chapel--our service is only on Saturdays to do vacuuming, clean smudges on walls, windows, pick up any papers left in the chapel, etc. and only if you are in a rural area, where they may not have it, would you have to do more of the regular cleaning.   As it is, I am happy to care for the building when it comes my turn, it's only maybe once or twice a year for an hour at the most.  I think I can give one or two hours of my time during the year to help care for our chapel.

[JamesBYoung]

On 12/18/2019 at 7:16 AM, mnn727 said:

.0004 That's a false number also.It was based on a statement given by a GA about an amount given, but the GA was not talking about total humanitarian help given at the time.

OK, lots of chatter about what the church gives to humanitarian aid without breaking it down.

Who can do that for us, please?

[JAHS]

34 minutes ago, pogi said:

5 hours ago, DonBradley said:

I'm objecting to the moral logic you're appealing to--one in which actual consequences for human lives are inconsequential and all that matters is obediently keeping rules and honestly keeping promises.

I don’t know if JAHS was suggesting that consequences don’t matter (he can speak for himself), but that we may not have a clear understanding of the purposes of the Church and the Lord in all things.  People are making judgments based on very little information, and perhaps JAHS is hinting at the principle of obedience in faith as exemplified by Adam - “I know not, save the Lord commanded me.”  We simply are not privy to the the full intent of the Church or the mind of the Lord in this matter, but I feel that we have been given enough to know that it is being saved for wise and righteous purposes and is in good hands.  

The Church has been clear on the purpose of these funds.  People will disagree on how much is too much to save for those purposes, but I agree that in paying tithing there is righteousness in saying “I know not, save the Lord commanded me.”  

I do believe that consequences matter, but like you say we don't really know all that is going on and so I have to trust God and the Church leaders on this one. So I continue to follow the law out of trust and love for God.

[rockpond]

34 minutes ago, alter idem said:

When I've cleaned the church, we weren't asked to clean the toilets (not that I'm above that, I clean toilets all the time);  but I assume it's because we have regular paid cleaners at our chapel--our service is only on Saturdays to do vacuuming, clean smudges on walls, windows, pick up any papers left in the chapel, etc. and only if you are in a rural area, where they may not have it, would you have to do more of the regular cleaning.   As it is, I am happy to care for the building when it comes my turn, it's only maybe once or twice a year for an hour at the most.  I think I can give one or two hours of my time during the year to help care for our chapel.

We (local members) are the only people who clean our meetinghouse.  We do it all - clean toilets, mop floors, wash windows, periodic deep cleaning, etc.  Only the building maintenance and landscaping is done by paid individuals.  (I do not live in a rural area.)