whistleblower on Church finances

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

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

No. I really have not seen a great track record from LDS "prophets, seers and revelators."

Edited December 19, 2019 by Teancum

[rockpond]

39 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

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

Who can do that for us, please?

In the last Gen Con (Oct 2019), President Nelson stated:

"Since that time [1984], Latter-day Saint Charities has provided more than two billion dollars in aid to assist those in need throughout the world."

So, that's roughly $60 million per year.  Right?

[california boy]

5 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

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.

I personally think people are more upset about amassing 100 billion investment portfolio than the unproven tax fraud issue.  You can't blame the whistleblower for the Church amassing of that kind of money.

[california boy]

Harmed by what? Finding out the church has amassed $100 billion investment portfolio?  I think people should be free to decide if they want to belong to a church that has such priorities.  That isn't necessarily harmful, it is shading light on how the church handles it's finances and people deciding if their conscious and religious beliefs are ok with that.  

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

Surely you don't think it's as simple as that. I believe it's that they aren't in keeping with the tax exempt law, of giving a percentage away to charitible organizations from the EPA account. That's it, nothing to do with the church having billions. In fact nothing would be said of it, if it's not tax exempt. But hey I'm glad the church has the billions, in case the members or the rest of the world need some help if it comes to that. But in the here and now, can't a little go to the members as far as ward budgets etc. The LDS members pay tithes to get the church to have the billions, can they just receive some breaks? But I digress, I understand the feelings of many of you of liking the peace that comes from sacrifice and feeling that the church brings so much to your lives in other ways. 

[rockpond]

55 minutes ago, pogi said:

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:

•  

I'm curious is the line of thought behind this "rainy-day" fund works at the individual level:

Let's say that when I graduated from college, I started placing all of my tithing into a brokerage account.  I would know that it was tithing and I wouldn't even spend it for my own personal use because it was my tithing.  So, each year I would add to that tithing fund in the brokerage account and invest in various stocks.  Is this acceptable?

Now, let's suppose that in my 30's, I wanted to start my own business.  Could I borrow funds from the tithing brokerage account I had built up?  It would be repaid and the money would still, ultimately, belong to the Lord.

In my 40's, maybe I realize that the unkempt house next door is going to bring down my own home value.  So, using funds from the tithing brokerage account, I purchase the home next door and fix it up.  I rent it out and all proceeds, except for a small management fee paid to my son, go back into the tithing brokerage account.

Hypothetically, I continue to build up this tithing brokerage account throughout my life using it to borrow from for various activities and investing in my kids' business ventures.  I let my family know that when I die, the entire account should be given to the church.

Is this acceptable or does it only work for the Church to do?

[Tacenda]

1 hour 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.

I guess I had some bad feelings from when my husband and I were doing most of the work, because of no-shows, when he was in High Priest group and was over that. And a bad experience of cleaning dried on poop on the stall in the men's bathroom, probably from a young boy. I remember when it was first put in place that we would be in charge of cleaning the entire building, and bathrooms no less, I remember the RS president acting like it was a little strange that we would be cleaning toilets, there was some murmuring. And I have a thing for liking my bathrooms clean, so maybe I took it to the next level. 

Edited December 19, 2019 by Tacenda

[Ryan Dahle]

6 hours ago, DonBradley said:

12 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

I essentially agree, Don. People ought to be very concerned not only with keeping righteous and appropriate promises, but with trying to discern the underlying purposes and consequences of their actions, including actions that are aimed to comply with specific divinely given commandments. I think most of the challenges that people face on the moral/social/historical side of their religious convictions come when they feel stuck between what they feel is right from a utilitarian standpoint (speaking generally of consequences-oriented ethics) and from their commitment to a divine command theory of ethics (which is basically the ethical foundation of Latter-day Saint orthopraxy). In other words, what do we do when our commitment to keeping what we perceive to be God's commandments conflicts with what we otherwise think to be morally right, based on the perceived outcomes of our actions.

One option is to question the commandment itself. Is the commandment or moral obligation really from God? Does it accurately reflect God's will? If we do feel it is a commandment from God, is it the type of commandment that He might revoke or modify (i.e. it is a lesser or provisional commandment that could be superseded by a better commandment when the people are read)? And so forth.

On the other hand, we might also question our mortal limitations in perceiving the ultimate consequences of divine directives. There are so many reasons that humans aren't equipped to deduce the final utility of God's commands. For one thing, we may not accurately perceive the underlying spiritual damage that certain choices may have. For another, we are often not able to see the long-term effect (in both this life and in the life to come) of decisions on an individual level, much less on a societal level.

I think that it is very important to keep both perspectives in mind. Those who never try to grapple with the underlying purposes and origins of what they perceive to be God's commandments are vulnerable to a type of complacency that may limit their spiritual growth, deprive them and others of available blessings, and even blind them to what God really wants. On the other hand, those who rely too heavily on their inherently limited and short-sighted utilitarian ethical perspective may end up unintentionally fighting against what, in the end, will be the best for themselves and for everyone.

For me, the tension between these competing ethical realities emphasizes the fundamental need for the spiritual gift of discernment. 

 

[JAHS]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

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

Right. Perhaps curious, but not concerned. I am confident that nothing illegal was done intentionally. 

[Amulek]

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

I personally think people are more upset about amassing 100 billion investment portfolio than the unproven tax fraud issue.  You can't blame the whistleblower for the Church amassing of that kind of money.

If I remember right, there is no evidence that the church actually has a 100B investment portfolio - that was a projection based on an assumed growth rate from a powerpoint presentation given more than five years ago. 

So, while back in 2013 someone was projecting that the portfolio would grow to around 100B by 2019 in a best case scenario, I don't know that we have seen any evidence that it actually did.

I'm sure it has grown from the 50B it was at the time, but to what - we don't actually know (and neither does the whistleblower). I would think somewhere around 75B would probably be a closer estimation.

The purpose of throwing out a biggest number though is to induce sticker shock. Most members of the church don't deal with large organizations or large amounts of money. Most people read that figure and think, "Whoa! That's a ton of money!" Some of us think, "Huh, so like a small Fortune 500." 

 

[california boy]

6 hours ago, DonBradley said:

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

This is exactly how I feel.  People should be making faith choices based on facts and reality rather than expectations and incorrect perceptions.  What the Church does should matter to those that participate, either as an affirming of their faith or in some cases a reconsidering of that trust in Church teachings and priorities.  This would be true of all religions. The reason why Mormons are not Catholic, for example, is because the Catholic Church's beliefs and practices don't line up with their own personal spiritual understanding and beliefs.  

I stayed in the Church most of my life. There were issues I didn't agree with but I could put those aside.  When those issues became impossible to continue to put them aside, I left.  Since I left the Church, those issues, many of which you mentioned, only got bigger and reaffirmed that I had made the right decision for me.  I don't expect the Church to change to my beliefs and values.  But I couldn't  continue to support an organization that I no long believed were in line with my own core values and spiritual beliefs. Ultimately our relationship with God is what is important, not a church.

[california boy]

1 minute ago, Amulek said:

If I remember right, there is no evidence that the church actually has a 100B investment portfolio - that was a projection based on an assumed growth rate from a powerpoint presentation given more than five years ago. 

So, while back in 2013 someone was projecting that the portfolio would grow to around 100B by 2019 in a best case scenario, I don't know that we have seen any evidence that it actually did.

I'm sure it has grown from the 50B it was at the time, but to what - we don't actually know (and neither does the whistleblower). I would think somewhere around 75B would probably be a closer estimation.

The purpose of throwing out a biggest number though is to induce sticker shock. Most members of the church don't deal with large organizations or large amounts of money. Most people read that figure and think, "Whoa! That's a ton of money!" Some of us think, "Huh, so like a small Fortune 500." 

 

If the number is incorrect, and the Church thinks that the members should know what that number really is, they can simply release the true amount.  I think most people would accept an authoritative statement by Church leaders. My point is, the Church has the ability to correct any false or misleading statements.  They also have to decide if doing so is in their best interest.  Until then, most people will probably believe the 100b number that has been reported.

[california boy]

21 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Right. Perhaps curious, but not concerned. I am confident that nothing illegal was done intentionally. 

I am confident as well. If the IRS disagrees, then I am sure the Church will make things right.  

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

If the number is incorrect, and the Church thinks that the members should know what that number really is, they can simply release the true amount.  I think most people would accept an authoritative statement by Church leaders. My point is, the Church has the ability to correct any false or misleading statements.  They also have to decide if doing so is in their best interest.  Until then, most people will probably believe the 100b number that has been reported.

In the interview on Infants On Thrones podcast, Lars brought up an interesting tidbit. He mentioned that before Pres. Packer passed away and before he was in the ranking that was allowed to know, he inquired about knowing all he could about the Ensign Peaks holdings. And was told no or something to that affect. So I'm thinking this info was kept on the down, down, down-low. 

[pogi]

51 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm curious is the line of thought behind this "rainy-day" fund works at the individual level:

Let's say that when I graduated from college, I started placing all of my tithing into a brokerage account.  I would know that it was tithing and I wouldn't even spend it for my own personal use because it was my tithing.  So, each year I would add to that tithing fund in the brokerage account and invest in various stocks.  Is this acceptable?

Now, let's suppose that in my 30's, I wanted to start my own business.  Could I borrow funds from the tithing brokerage account I had built up?  It would be repaid and the money would still, ultimately, belong to the Lord.

In my 40's, maybe I realize that the unkempt house next door is going to bring down my own home value.  So, using funds from the tithing brokerage account, I purchase the home next door and fix it up.  I rent it out and all proceeds, except for a small management fee paid to my son, go back into the tithing brokerage account.

Hypothetically, I continue to build up this tithing brokerage account throughout my life using it to borrow from for various activities and investing in my kids' business ventures.  I let my family know that when I die, the entire account should be given to the church.

Is this acceptable or does it only work for the Church to do?

That doesn't really follow the injunction of Malachi 3:10:

Quote

Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

Also, tithing is used for much more than the rainy-day fund.  The vast majority is used for the daily operations of the Church, so if members didn't give, the Church wouldn't have funds to operate.

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.

Also, in the chance that the Church needs to use the fund in emergency, could you imagine how in-efficient it would be to try and collect those funds from members who have their own private funds.  

Edited December 19, 2019 by pogi

[Calm]

2 hours 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 appropriate analogy would be the temple complex using the widow's mite whether or not for the priests and their families to live large.

And there is no evidence that tithing is the only source of Ensign Peak's investments (see helix's post).  If you want to insist on this claim, CFR from actual documentation please, not speculation of Nielsen brothers.

[provoman]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Harmed by what? Finding out the church has amassed $100 billion investment portfolio?  I think people should be free to decide if they want to belong to a church that has such priorities.  That isn't necessarily harmful, it is shading light on how the church handles it's finances and people deciding if their conscious and religious beliefs are ok with that.  

The point being is one may not be bothered by the accumulation of funds, AND at the same time be concerned about the negative/harmful effect the information is having on others.

Edited December 19, 2019 by provoman

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

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.  

I don't think they were bothered (I certainly wasn't) by what you said about your own position.  The problem is you made a negative judgment about others who approach it differently than you.

Quote

People who do care are not paying tithing for the right reason.

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

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

Who can do that for us, please?

Iirc, Robert Smith wrote an article about it, but I don't remember seeing him post in the thread so he may not be reading it.  Perhaps you might PM him to see if my memory is correct.  I may do some more research myself, but catching up on threads and other things right now.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

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.)

I wonder if there are legal requirements in some areas for more professional oversight for a semipublic building.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

In the last Gen Con (Oct 2019), President Nelson stated:

"Since that time [1984], Latter-day Saint Charities has provided more than two billion dollars in aid to assist those in need throughout the world."

So, that's roughly $60 million per year.  Right?

I don't think it is all that helpful to do an average when the wealth of the Church has grown, so it really isn't an accurate percentage to do an average over 35 years and then compare it to today's assets (to the best of our knowledge).  Half of that (one billion) might have been provided in the last five years, for example.  Also their method of helping might have changed as well, in the past collecting and giving out more material goods which may not have been included in the dollar amount in this quote where now due to increased speed and different needs, money is sent to local charities that they buy needed goods and hand them out (when Sharon Eubank gave her FM presentation several years ago, it sounded like she was talking about a method change when she explained that they had done this recently for a crisis in Turkey iirc).

Not sure how to adjust to find some sort of semiaccurate percentage of current aid going out given we don't know the amounts, I just think we need to include caution in presenting a picture that implies the Church is somehow not responsive to a changing picture.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

et's say that when I graduated from college, I started placing all of my tithing into a brokerage account.  I would know that it was tithing and I wouldn't even spend it for my own personal use because it was my tithing.  So, each year I would add to that tithing fund in the brokerage account and invest in various stocks.  Is this acceptable?

We don't know if it is only tithing, so the analogy could be tithing and leftover profit from a business you own after you took some to build up the business or give bonuses to workers.  Added:  plus from the info given, it was only 1/7 of tithing funds that ended up invested iirc (6 billion went to funding the Church and 1 billion set aside for investment).

Quote

Is this acceptable or does it only work for the Church to do?

You need to use something besides tithing as the Church does not pay tithing to itself.  You keeping part of your tithing for all your life when the instruction is to pay on an ongoing basis of some sort (my dad paid every other year to maximize deduction at least for part of his life while we pay monthly and my mom pays when I remember to do it for her) and then turning it over to the Church in a lump sum at your death is a different scenario than the Church taking a percentage of tithing received and investing it.

How about a trust fund set meant to go to the Church on your death and instead of tithing it is tax refunds or dividends from certain investments?

Edited December 19, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

In the interview on Infants On Thrones podcast, Lars brought up an interesting tidbit. He mentioned that before Pres. Packer passed away and before he was in the ranking that was allowed to know, he inquired about knowing all he could about the Ensign Peaks holdings. And was told no or something to that affect. So I'm thinking this info was kept on the down, down, down-low. 

And Lars knows this how?  Best buds with Pres. Packer?  Just happened to be standing in the corridor visiting his brother and the office door was open?  Or he was told by his brother who got it from the janitor?

His brother started working at Ensign Peak in 2010.  Pres. Packer was made President of the Quorum of the 12 in 2008, so if he was ever not "in the ranking" of who was allowed to know, that would have been prior to Nielsen being hired.  Therefore that alleged event could not have been personal knowledge of his brother since if it occurred, it would have taken place years before he was there.  If the alleged story actually exists, it would not be surprising if it was office folklore passed around until who knows who said it first and in what form it first appeared.

Edited December 19, 2019 by Calm

[pogi]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

And Lars knows this how?  Best buds with Pres. Packer?  Just happened to be standing in the corridor visiting his brother and the office door was open?  Or he was told by his brother who got it from the janitor?

Come on Calm!  It was said on Infants on Thrones...it must be true!

[JAHS]

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

I wonder if there are legal requirements in some areas for more professional oversight for a semipublic building.

If so the people who maintain those public restrooms at the rest stops on the freeway are in big trouble 🙂