whistleblower on Church finances

[rockpond]

50 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Second, if the church has that much assets, that is proof the church is a good steward of money.

False.  Having a lot of assets is only proof that the church has taken in more than it has spent.  If they were to show that they've had good returns on their investments while building up the kingdom of God according to His will, then that would be proof that they have been good stewards.

50 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

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?

Is there not another option?

[california boy]

11 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

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. 

Higher moral authority means it is better to lie (immoral) than to allow the innocent death of someone (even more immoral)

yeah.  I dint see the connection  that amassing 100 billion dollars is similar to hiding Jews   I don’t see a higher moral objective  

You are trying to characterize my response as being seen in the worse possible light when really I think you haven’t shown what you claim to be true.  Hence the question, where is the higher moral ground?

 

[alter idem]

On 12/19/2019 at 1:28 AM, 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

I see it as an attempt by the whistle blower to harm and damage the church, no question about it.   He absolutely thought the church was doing something wrong.  That's why he's done the things he has done.  He wants to expose what he believes is wrong doing.  But, I think people would care a bit if it seemed like there was some validity to his claims, but I think many of us are seeing this not as an attempt to cheat the members or not pay taxes owed (as he seems to want it portrayed) but an attempt to handle funds wisely and carefully.  I've always felt it was important to have an emergency fund and to be very careful about spending money and I guess, that's why I don't have a problem at all in finding this out. And who will benefit from that rainy day fund?  Members and others in need.  I trust that our leaders are not charlatans.  Also, from what experts have said (posted earlier on the thread), the church hasn't violated any tax laws, so this is a non story. 

[rockpond]

15 hours ago, pogi said:

From Helix:

Notice the first 2 bullet points under part 1.

Okay.  So no evidence that it is from tithes and offerings.  Where do you think that the Church would get a billion dollars per year?  (Again, assuming that part is correct.)

[california boy]

9 minutes ago, alter idem said:

I see it as an attempt by the whistle blower to harm and damage the church, no question about it.   He absolutely thought the church was doing something wrong.  That's why he's done the things he has done.  He wants to expose what he believes is wrong doing.  But, I think people would care a bit if it seemed like there was some validity to his claims, but I think many of us are seeing this not as an attempt to cheat the members or not pay taxes owed (as he seems to want it portrayed) but an attempt to handle funds wisely and carefully.  I've always felt it was important to have an emergency fund and to be very careful about spending money and I guess, that's why I don't have a problem at all in finding this out. And who will benefit from that rainy day fund?  Members and others in need.  I trust that our leaders are not charlatans.  Also, from what experts have said (posted earlier on the thread), the church hasn't violated any tax laws, so this is a non story. 

It is only harmful if he made the whole thing up.   The Church doesn’t seem to be denying it. Do you think no such fund exists?  Maybe the amount is wrong, but the Church could easily correct that.

[rodheadlee]

13 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?  

In his own field, yes he is.

[rodheadlee]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

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.

But if they had lost that money in failed Investments everyone would think they are definitely not prophets seers and revelators.

[Ryan Dahle]

14 minutes ago, california boy said:

35 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

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. 

Higher moral authority means it is better to lie (immoral) than to allow the innocent death of someone (even more immoral)

yeah.  I dint see the connection  that amassing 100 billion dollars is similar to hiding Jews   I don’t see a higher moral objective  

You are trying to characterize my response as being seen in the worse possible light when really I think you haven’t shown what you claim to be true.  Hence the question, where is the higher moral ground?

Actually, that isn't what "moral authority" means. It most often refers to the reputation that an actor has for good behavior. Someone who consistently acts morally has moral authority. Those who don't act morally, don't have moral authority. For instance, anonymous internet critics don't have the moral authority to lecture the Church about matters of transparency.  

And the fact that you continue to misrepresent my statements only reinforces my point. Sometimes, no matter what you say, people will manipulatively try to misrepresent your intent, no matter how many times you clarify your position. 

[Duncan]

27 minutes ago, california boy said:

It is only harmful if he made the whole thing up.   The Church doesn’t seem to be denying it. Do you think no such fund exists?  Maybe the amount is wrong, but the Church could easily correct that.

as nice as it is to have the 1st Presidency speak on this issue, i'm more interested in what the IRS has to say, like yes we work in conjunction with the Church and it's all fine or we'll start an investigation and see what, if anything, comes from it-that's a statement i'm interested in seeing. As I see it now all these capable and educated people speaking as to what the IRS could do or have done is one thing but I am looking for what the IRS has to say

edit to add I just saw this 

"LDS Church fund unlikely to face IRS backlash experts say" fine and good but the IRS decides what is 'likely' or 'unlikely' for the way they operate

Edited December 20, 2019 by Duncan

[JAHS]

41 minutes ago, alter idem said:

On 12/19/2019 at 12:28 AM, 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

I see it as an attempt by the whistle blower to harm and damage the church, no question about it.   He absolutely thought the church was doing something wrong.  That's why he's done the things he has done.  He wants to expose what he believes is wrong doing.  But, I think people would care a bit if it seemed like there was some validity to his claims, but I think many of us are seeing this not as an attempt to cheat the members or not pay taxes owed (as he seems to want it portrayed) but an attempt to handle funds wisely and carefully.  I've always felt it was important to have an emergency fund and to be very careful about spending money and I guess, that's why I don't have a problem at all in finding this out. And who will benefit from that rainy day fund?  Members and others in need.  I trust that our leaders are not charlatans.  Also, from what experts have said (posted earlier on the thread), the church hasn't violated any tax laws, so this is a non story.

If he did not want to attack and harm the church he could have handled his concerns internally with the correct church authorities and warn them that he thought they were doing something wrong that could get them in trouble with the IRS.  They would be able to investigate his concerns and determine if any changes need to be made. Why did he have to go public with this?  

[provoman]

34 minutes ago, california boy said:

It is only harmful if he made the whole thing up.   The Church doesn’t seem to be denying it. Do you think no such fund exists?  Maybe the amount is wrong, but the Church could easily correct that.

Who is harmed if it is made up? And what might be the harm if it is made up?

Edited December 20, 2019 by provoman

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, JAHS said:

If he did not want to attack and harm the church he could have handled his concerns internally with the correct church authorities and warn them that he thought they were doing something wrong that could get them in trouble with the IRS.  They would be able to investigate his concerns and determine if any changes need to be made. Why did he have to go public with this?  

maybe he did that? who knows

[california boy]

21 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Actually, that isn't what "moral authority" means. It most often refers to the reputation that an actor has for good behavior. Someone who consistently acts morally has moral authority. Those who don't act morally, don't have moral authority. For instance, anonymous internet critics don't have the moral authority to lecture the Church about matters of transparency.  

And the fact that you continue to misrepresent my statements only reinforces my point. Sometimes, no matter what you say, people will manipulatively try to misrepresent your intent, no matter how many times you clarify your position. 

So you didn’t understand what I meant by higher authority in my clarification? Or are you just more interested in fighting than understanding

[california boy]

5 minutes ago, JAHS said:

If he did not want to attack and harm the church he could have handled his concerns internally with the correct church authorities and warn them that he thought they were doing something wrong that could get them in trouble with the IRS.  They would be able to investigate his concerns and determine if any changes need to be made. Why did he have to go public with this?  

Oh I think it is pretty clear HE thinks what the Church did is wrong. But I don’t think the church thinks having 100 billion dollar investment fund is wrong.  Since the Church doesn’t think it is wrong than I don’t see the problem.  It is what it is and people have to decide how they feel about it.  Revealing something that the Church feels is good and proper isn’t Anti Mormon any more than revealing any other belief the Church holds.  

[stemelbow]

43 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

But if they had lost that money in failed Investments everyone would think they are definitely not prophets seers and revelators.

They aren't the ones doing the investing.  They leave that, it seems, to experts that they pay.  

[Tacenda]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

As simple as what?

I'm sure the IRS will sort out whether the Church has complied with the law.  If the Church has not complied with it, it needs to be held accountable.  

That said, I think the Church will probably be exonerated.  Not because it is above the law, but because it will be found to have not violated the law.  Because it has strong incentives to obey the law, and excellent resources (accountants, lawyers, financial planners, etc.) to help ensure that it does so. 

"The church having billions" is the central "shock value" aspect of this story.

I previously served in a bishopric for 8 years.  I was quite surprised at the amount of the ward budget.  It was, in my view, very modest.

In time, I came to appreciate the value of allocating a limited budget to our ward.  Our activities tend to be modest affairs.  Most of the money goes toward the youth programs.  A decent-sized chunk is set aside for the Christmas party.  Adding to our budget would only incrementally improve ward gatherings and events.  And in the aggregate, larger budgets would involve tens of millions of dollars, which money could be better spent on helping our brothers and sisters in poorer countries, missionary work, temple work, humanitarial efforts, and so on.

Not sure what you mean here.  

I feel abundantly blessed because of my membership in, and efforts to support, the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks for your comments Smac! To the bold, then hopefully the church will go easy on the Christmas concerts in downtown SLC. I wonder what the cost is by hiring stars etc. to perform. Why is it only the average members that must sacrifice? I'm not asking for extravagence like the church puts out. And do we need all of those videos? It feels a bit over the top to me. So don't you think the church leaders could sacrifice more in that dept as well? Because when there isn't enough in the budget, it is coming out of the pockets of the saints in their ward's auxillaries. And they already seem to be bled dry, with being asked to pay more on fast offerings, and of course their time/tithing. I don't mind being asked to sacrifice, but why not the church sacrifice as well? 

[ksfisher]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

hopefully the church will go easy on the Christmas concerts in downtown SLC

You really don't like the Christmas concert, do you.

It gets broadcast on TV.  It's a missionary tool like the choir broadcast that takes place every Sunday morning.

[Ryan Dahle]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

23 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Actually, that isn't what "moral authority" means. It most often refers to the reputation that an actor has for good behavior. Someone who consistently acts morally has moral authority. Those who don't act morally, don't have moral authority. For instance, anonymous internet critics don't have the moral authority to lecture the Church about matters of transparency.  

And the fact that you continue to misrepresent my statements only reinforces my point. Sometimes, no matter what you say, people will manipulatively try to misrepresent your intent, no matter how many times you clarify your position. 

So you didn’t understand what I meant by higher authority in my clarification? Or are you just more interested in fighting than understanding

Your "clarification" didn't mention that you were consciously using a made up, idiosyncratic definition of the term. You simply said:

Quote

Higher moral authority means it is better to lie (immoral) than to allow the innocent death of someone (even more immoral)

So I was simply offering a correct definition of the term, for the sake of successful further communication. You could have responded by saying something like, "Oh, I didn't realize I was misusing that term. I understand now why you were originally confused." 

[JAHS]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

Oh I think it is pretty clear HE thinks what the Church did is wrong. But I don’t think the church thinks having 100 billion dollar investment fund is wrong.  Since the Church doesn’t think it is wrong than I don’t see the problem.  It is what it is and people have to decide how they feel about it.  Revealing something that the Church feels is good and proper isn’t Anti Mormon any more than revealing any other belief the Church holds.  

Well it's not the amount of money they had which should not be a problem, it was the fact that they supposedly were not using it for it's intended purpose for 22 years which may have invalidated the tax exempt status.    If he knew that while still employed with the company he could have simply warned them first and let them make changes rather than going public with it. It's possible he tried to do that but I don't think we know that. 

[Tacenda]

18 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

You really don't like the Christmas concert, do you.

It gets broadcast on TV.  It's a missionary tool like the choir broadcast that takes place every Sunday morning.

Well, I don't want to get into it much, but a friend of my husband and mine, who recently retired from the church, sets up for the programs in and around temple square, and from what he said there is so much waste. Thousands are spent on decorations as well, and thrown out afterwards.

Edited December 20, 2019 by Tacenda

[provoman]

nvm

Edited December 20, 2019 by provoman

[gopher]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

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?

As long as the church isn't refusing to help out its members, I don't feel a need to decide what's the appropriate amount for the church to invest.

[Anonymous Mormon]

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

Oh I think it is pretty clear HE thinks what the Church did is wrong. But I don’t think the church thinks having 100 billion dollar investment fund is wrong.  Since the Church doesn’t think it is wrong than I don’t see the problem.  It is what it is and people have to decide how they feel about it.  

Revealing something that the Church feels is good and proper isn’t Anti Mormon any more than revealing any other belief the Church holds.  

I agree with your point that everyone needs to decide for themselves if the church having $100B is morally wrong (assuming it's even true). I personally am not bothered that for ~20 years that church has been saving ~14% of their money in a rainy day fund and that it has grown so big. Since this is tithing money and not offerings, it should only be spent on building the kingdom of God / work of salvation (as opposed to offerings that help the poor and needy). I am guessing there were very few needs for it, so they just let it grow. I did something similar at one point in my life where my monthly auto-draft savings fund grew to be huge - and then I lost my job and it got used up.  I am excited to see how the church put these sacred funds to use, when they are ready to do so.

Regarding whether or not this Whistle-Blower is attacking the church or is "anti-Mormon," there is no doubt in my mind he is. As he said on the Infants on Thrones podcast, he named the video "A Letter to the IRS Director" specifically in homage to the good work Jeremy Runnels has done and he was hoping that this would have the same effect. He is very anti-Mormon and anti-LDS and was straight forward blunt about it on the podcast.

Both of these facts are true at the same time. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Okay.  So no evidence that it is from tithes and offerings.  Where do you think that the Church would get a billion dollars per year?  (Again, assuming that part is correct.)

Part from tithes, part from other investments and for-profit businesses. 

[Anonymous Mormon]

49 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Thanks for your comments Smac! To the bold, then hopefully the church will go easy on the Christmas concerts in downtown SLC. I wonder what the cost is by hiring stars etc. to perform. Why is it only the average members that must sacrifice? I'm not asking for extravagence like the church puts out. And do we need all of those videos? It feels a bit over the top to me. So don't you think the church leaders could sacrifice more in that dept as well? Because when there isn't enough in the budget, it is coming out of the pockets of the saints in their ward's auxillaries. And they already seem to be bled dry, with being asked to pay more on fast offerings, and of course their time/tithing. I don't mind being asked to sacrifice, but why not the church sacrifice as well? 

Tithing funds are to be spent in spreading the Gospel. I don't know how much of a missionary tool the Christmas Concert is and how effective it is at doing this. But if it gets good measurable results, I am all for it.

I definitely think that they church videos are worth the money for spreading the Gospel. These videos are life-long missionary tools on YouTube. They are shared in social media posts by members constantly. And they help teach the uneducated/illiterate/young children the Gospel as well. They are definitely a good use of tithing funds.

However, let's sit and ponder for a second that the examples of the church's extravagance you are highlighting are a concert and some videos. There are so many organizations/corporations that spend extravagantly in this world, if these are the worst grievances the church is doing with their $6 Billion per year budget, then I say we are doing pretty good and shouldn't be so critical.