whistleblower on Church finances

[Calm]

53 minutes ago, california boy said:

Maybe you could give me an example where the church would need 100billion for Some unforsen emergency so I could better understand where you are coming from

Unless I knew the kind of expenses and usual income the Church has, how can I predict what they might need that kind of money for?

[rodheadlee]

11 hours ago, Teancum said:

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

Don't you think the growth of their portfolio might make my point for me?

[MiserereNobis]

5 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Don't you think the growth of their portfolio might make my point for me?

So... Warren Buffet is a prophet seer and revelator?

Don't get me wrong. I have no negative thoughts about this latest thing. But to say that building wealth is a sign that the leaders of a church are ordained by God seems a bit off for me. Especially since those leaders probably had nothing to do with the way the wealth was built -- that would be the role of the portfolio managers. Or are you maybe saying those managers are prophets?  

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

 Yeah, if they are approved. I am thinking of a guy in my parent’s ward who hired a couple of limos for all the Youth for Mormon Prom without talking to anyone. He did not ask for reimbursement and I am betting he would have been denied if he had asked.

That does appear to be a bit excessive. I get reimbursed for the postage stamps we use for our letter-only ministering assignment.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

So... Warren Buffet is a prophet seer and revelator?

Don't get me wrong. I have no negative thoughts about this latest thing. But to say that building wealth is a sign that the leaders of a church are ordained by God seems a bit off for me. Especially since those leaders probably had nothing to do with the way the wealth was built -- that would be the role of the portfolio managers. Or are you maybe saying those managers are prophets?  

How did the Catholic Church build it’s immense wealth? Is it a sign of anything in particular?🤔
 

PS. 😉

Edited December 20, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[california boy]

 

10 hours ago, pogi said:

When is it chump change?  I thought I just answered that - when you divide it between 15 million members and other charities in an emergency.

Again, you and others are not looking at it in scale.  For any single person it is a crap-load-o'-moolah, but it isn't there to get any single person, or group of people, rich.  Again, the only people looking to get rich from it are the Nielsen brothers.  

Maybe if you too could give me an idea what kind of situation the church would need 100 billion dollars to solve a problem, I could better understand your position.  

Edited December 20, 2019 by california boy

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Unless I knew the kind of expenses and usual income the Church has, how can I predict what they might need that kind of money for?

Well as I understand it, operating expenses run around 6 billion a year.  Those are covered annually by an income of 7 billion.  The reason I believe you can not come up with a need for a 100 billion dollar rainy day fund is because that far exceeds any foreseeable or even possible need.  And maybe that is why some seem to feel this is excessive.  I can see their point.  Do you not really see any basis for their concerns?

[california boy]

9 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

The historically true-to-life scenario of someone hiding Jews in a basement and of having to respond to Nazi inquiries about it, is a classic example of an ethical dilemma. It is often used in entry-level college courses to introduce the idea that some weightier moral obligations might impinge on the obligation to not lie or deceive. So, it is a common and widely-used analogy. If you read my post, in context, it should be obvious that I wasn't trying to imply some sort of equivalence between genocide and the Church's policy on finance transparency.

Note that immediately after the Nazi analogy, I follow up with a much more trivial one. The point was that in situations both grave (Jews in the basement) and less serious (personal appearance), many people feel it is morally justifiable to be less than transparent. The morality of the issue is relative or contextual, and thus we need more context to make an informed decision.  

 

Using the extermination of Jews has also been routinely used to justify immoral behavior when there is not higher moral reason.

Do you think that higher moral authority holds up when eventually, as in this case, the 100billion dollar investment fund comes to light?  Should the Church provide any explanation for their actions to those members that are troubled by that decision?

 

 

Edited December 20, 2019 by california boy

[why me]

I think that the news has now died down about it all. I think that we need to wait and see what happens. Do we trust the whistleblower? Does the whistleblower know all? Strange if so. Also, there seems to be an axe to grind by the whistleblower.

[Rain]

 

On 12/17/2019 at 11:24 AM, Danzo said:

Generally, Donations are measured as cash or donations in kind.  A proper accounting of outlays for a service or humanitarian activity needs to account for both, otherwise you get very skewed results.

I ran into this problem a few years back when working with a Habitat for Humanity affiliate.  People would just show up or drop off supplies and work on the houses and no one would account for it. It made it look like they houses they were building had really low values. Some of these houses had only 10K or so on the books. This had the affect of making it look like the affiliate was not contributing very much, when in actuality, these houses, if properly accounted for were valued at 10 times the amount expended on as shown on the books. 

We had to make sure controls were put in place to record all of the in kind donations of supplies and labor so that the public, the homeowners and the county assessors could have real values.

Not accounting for the volunteer labor by members of the church could also distort the valuation of the churches humanitarian and charitable efforts. 

Thank you. I do the inventory for the organization I am with. Just this week we were asked for the value of items given to help another charitable organization. We also give them number of volunteers and hours, but I never thought of the monetary value of the volunteer hours given till reading your post.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

The reason I believe you can not come up with a need for a 100 billion dollar rainy day fund is because that far exceeds any foreseeable or even possible need.

Joseph Smith in 1834:

Quote

Brethren, I have been very much edified and instructed in your testimonies here tonight, but I want to say to you before the Lord, that you know no more concerning the destinies of this Church and kingdom than a babe upon its mother’s lap. You don’t comprehend it. It is only a little handful of Priesthood you see here tonight, but this Church will fill North and South America — it will fill the world.

Joseph, I suspect, was emboldened by what the Lord had earlier told him.

Jesus Christ in 1831:

Quote

Hearken, and lo, a voice as of one sent down from on high, who is mighty and powerful, whose going forth is unto the ends of the earth, yea, whose voice is unto men — Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

The keys of the kingdom of God are committed unto man on the earth, and from thence shall the gospel roll forth unto the ends of the earth, as the stone which is cut out of the mountain without hands shall roll forth, until it has filled the whole earth.

Jesus Christ in 1832:

Quote

Behold, this is the preparation wherewith I prepare you, and the foundation, and the ensample which I give unto you, whereby you may accomplish the commandments which are given you;

That through my providence, notwithstanding the tribulation which shall descend upon you, that the church may stand independent above all other creatures beneath the celestial world;

Now, I know you don't believe either of them on this point, but we do. Unreservedly. As do the living prophets. If there was previously any doubt of that in people's minds, that doubt should now be obliterated. The charge was to prepare the way of the Lord, to make it possible for the Restored Gospel to fill the whole earth, not dependent on any other 'creatures'. We intend to do it. I'm sorry that upsets you so much.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Well as I understand it, operating expenses run around 6 billion a year.  Those are covered annually by an income of 7 billion.  The reason I believe you can not come up with a need for a 100 billion dollar rainy day fund is because that far exceeds any foreseeable or even possible need.  And maybe that is why some seem to feel this is excessive.  I can see their point.  Do you not really see any basis for their concerns?

Until Nielsen’s allegations are demonstrated accurate, I do not see them as sufficient for speculation.

From helix’s summary:

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.
• The source for $7B in annual tithing is a second-hand recollection of someone else's guess (page 20).

 

Edited December 20, 2019 by Calm

[MiserereNobis]

Oops, mistake

Edited December 20, 2019 by MiserereNobis

[Amulek]

11 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Part of me is wondering if someone will seek to enforce the NDA that has no doubt been breached. I can understand why Church leaders wouldn't, but I secretly hope they might ...

As I've mentioned, the only really clever thing these guys have done is to insulate themselves from liability by publishing the information from their leak in an IRS whistleblower complaint.

It allows them to put the information they wanted to leak out into the public sphere, get their 15 minutes of fame and, after the IRS determines that nothing shady was going on (if it even bothers to look), make use of the protections offered under the government's whistleblower laws which, according to precedent, protect a whistleblowers reasonable but mistaken belief that the conduct complained of constituted a violation of relevant law.

 

[Amulek]

11 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Then there is the references to mega churches and their excesses and the Church is referred to as a gigachurch. At one point the document says it is the only gigachurch (sorry to Catholics and Baptist’s and all the other wannabes who did not make the cut)

Now this offends me. I mean, we Catholics are the harlot of Babylon after all! And if the riches of Rome don't make us #1 on the list, well dang.

Well, now you know the real reason why there's a temple in Rome. Remember to play nice or we'll have to terminate your lease on the Sistine Chapel next.  

 

[pogi]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

 

Maybe if you too could give me an idea what kind of situation the church would need 100 billion dollars to solve a problem, I could better understand your position.  

 

8 hours ago, california boy said:

Well as I understand it, operating expenses run around 6 billion a year.  Those are covered annually by an income of 7 billion.  The reason I believe you can not come up with a need for a 100 billion dollar rainy day fund is because that far exceeds any foreseeable or even possible need.  And maybe that is why some seem to feel this is excessive.  I can see their point.  Do you not really see any basis for their concerns?

You are only considering general operation expenses.

Our very name (Latter-day Saints) affirms we are in the last days.  I don’t know if you have read the prophecies but any number of them could quickly drain our rainy-day fund, especially if it turns into rainy-years.  A severe depression would cut our reserves in half or more as stocks plummet, tithing income would drop significantly, and humanitarian need/aid in and out of our church would increase an untold amount.  Famine, drought, global warming, war, pestilence, disease, economic depression, etc. It’s all coming.  100 billion is not that much on a large scale down-turn.

Edited December 20, 2019 by pogi

[carbon dioxide]

13 hours ago, california boy said:

Maybe you could give me an example where the church would need 100billion for Some unforsen emergency so I could better understand where you are coming from

First, where is the evidence that has been presented that the church has that much assets? 

Second, if the church has that much assets, that is proof the church is a good steward of money.  It is not wasting money but growing it.  Would it not be nice if government took that approach?  Spend money wisely, save for emergencies, ect than go into debt? 

Third, in answer to your question, is it not better to have 100 billion and not need it than need a 100 billion and not have it?

Edited December 20, 2019 by carbon dioxide

[carbon dioxide]

When Christ comes again, the Church will be far far richer at that point.  Everything that exists is owned by Christ and thus would be part of his church.  100 billion is nothing.  Small potatoes.

[Teancum]

12 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Don't you think the growth of their portfolio might make my point for me?

No I don't think they have anything to do with the growth of their portfolio. Because the church may have a $100 billion portfolio you think that is indication of the LDS leaders being actual prophets and they used that talent to grow their portfolio? I would think rather they hired talented money managers and investors.

[Nacho2dope]

10 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

First, where is the evidence that has been presented that the church has that much assets? 

Second, if the church has that much assets, that is proof the church is a good steward of money.  It is not wasting money but growing it.  Would it not be nice if government took that approach?  Spend money wisely, save for emergencies, ect than go into debt? 

Third, in answer to your question, is it not better to have 100 billion and not need it than need a 100 billion and not have it?

Its been so interesting reading these post on here and social media. You are correct there is no evidence that the Church has a 100 billion in the bank. Its incredible how many people I have seen on social media, some of them friends who are questioning their belief in the church now over all of this. 

Edited December 20, 2019 by Nacho2dope

[california boy]

7 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Joseph Smith in 1834:

Joseph, I suspect, was emboldened by what the Lord had earlier told him.

Jesus Christ in 1831:

Jesus Christ in 1832:

Now, I know you don't believe either of them on this point, but we do. Unreservedly. As do the living prophets. If there was previously any doubt of that in people's minds, that doubt should now be obliterated. The charge was to prepare the way of the Lord, to make it possible for the Restored Gospel to fill the whole earth, not dependent on any other 'creatures'. We intend to do it. I'm sorry that upsets you so much.

So basically it is based on fear. Ok thanks

[Ryan Dahle]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

18 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

The historically true-to-life scenario of someone hiding Jews in a basement and of having to respond to Nazi inquiries about it, is a classic example of an ethical dilemma. It is often used in entry-level college courses to introduce the idea that some weightier moral obligations might impinge on the obligation to not lie or deceive. So, it is a common and widely-used analogy. If you read my post, in context, it should be obvious that I wasn't trying to imply some sort of equivalence between genocide and the Church's policy on finance transparency.

Note that immediately after the Nazi analogy, I follow up with a much more trivial one. The point was that in situations both grave (Jews in the basement) and less serious (personal appearance), many people feel it is morally justifiable to be less than transparent. The morality of the issue is relative or contextual, and thus we need more context to make an informed decision.  

 

Using the extermination of Jews has also been routinely used to justify immoral behavior when there is not higher moral reason.

Do you think that higher moral authority holds up when eventually, as in this case, the 100billion dollar investment fund comes to light?  Should the Church provide any explanation for their actions to those members that are troubled by that decision?

I never mentioned higher moral authority, so I'm not sure what you are talking about. 

As for whether I think the Church should be more transparent, that judgment depends (as I've repeatedly said) on factors that aren't known. 

I suspect, though, that the lack of transparency is largely due to the fact that no matter what Church leaders do or say, people will try to cause the Church harm. Just like no matter how I've tried to explain my intent in regard to the "Jews in the basement" ethical dilemma, you have persisted in misrepresenting my point and viewing my statements in the most negative light possible. I suspect that is precisely the kind of behavior (which, ironically, is often made by anonymous and therefore less-than-transparent internet critics) that has led to the Church's lack of transparency. It is a lose-lose situation, and the Church is forced into an ethical dilemma, trying to determine what action will cause the least amount of damage to people's relationship with Jesus Christ and his restored gospel. 

It is similar to why most of us don't feel good about disclosing our personal information on the internet. There is a possibility that someone will in some way take advantage of that information to harm you, even if the information itself is perfectly appropriate or benign. Of all people, anonymous internet critics should understand why opting for a lack of transparency, even when there is nothing sinister to hide, is sometimes an unfortunate necessity. If people really want the Church to be more transparent, they might consider being less manipulative towards the information that it already provides. 

[gopher]

27 minutes ago, Nacho2dope said:

Its been so interesting reading these post on here and social media. You are correct there is no evidence that the Church has a 100 billion in the bank. Its incredible how many people I have seen on social media, some of them friends who are questioning their belief in the church now over all of this. 

Only in the bizarro world of church critics can you find objections to a church that takes care of its members AND is able to have 100 billion dollars (allegedly) in reserves.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

 

You are only considering general operation expenses.

Our very name (Latter-day Saints) affirms we are in the last days.  I don’t know if you have read the prophecies but any number of them could quickly drain our rainy-day fund, especially if it turns into rainy-years.  A severe depression would cut our reserves in half or more as stocks plummet, tithing income would drop significantly, and humanitarian need/aid in and out of our church would increase an untold amount.  Famine, drought, global warming, war, pestilence, disease, economic depression, etc. It’s all coming.  100 billion is not that much on a large scale down-turn.

 

39 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

First, where is the evidence that has been presented that the church has that much assets? 

Second, if the church has that much assets, that is proof the church is a good steward of money.  It is not wasting money but growing it.  Would it not be nice if government took that approach?  Spend money wisely, save for emergencies, ect than go into debt? 

Third, in answer to your question, is it not better to have 100 billion and not need it than need a 100 billion and not have it?

Thanks for your answers.  It at least gives me an idea why some, or even perhaps most have no problem with the 100 billion stockpile

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, gopher said:

Only in the bizarro world of church critics can you find objections to a church that takes care of its members AND is able to have 100 billion dollars (allegedly) in reserves.

Just curious... for you, is there any limit on the amount of money that would be appropriate for the Church to have invested in assets outside of things like church buildings, temples, and educational institutions?  Half a trillion?  One trillion?  Ten trillion?  Any cap?  Or, sky's the limit?