Scott Lloyd Posted December 21, 2019 Posted December 21, 2019 10 minutes ago, pogi said: That actually really surprises me, absolutely shocks me actually, that they haven't made a profit from album sales alone considering they are all non-paid volunteers and have 5 gold and 2 platinum records and a Grammy under their belt. Their wardrobes and travel expenses must really add up! Consider the cost of hotel rooms alone for the members of the choir and the Orchestra at Temple Square on domestic and overseas tours. The recordings do comparatively well but are in genres (classical, devotional, patriotic and folk) that, unlike pop, have never been huge money makers. Their lone Hot 100 hit was “Battle Hymn of the Republic” in 1959. Their live performances in the Salt Lake area are presented with free admission, including the big ones in July and December.
Avatar4321 Posted December 21, 2019 Posted December 21, 2019 http://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-of-jesus-christ-finances 2
pogi Posted December 21, 2019 Posted December 21, 2019 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: Consider the cost of hotel rooms alone for the members of the choir and the Orchestra at Temple Square on domestic and overseas tours. The recordings do comparatively well but are in genres (classical, devotional, patriotic and folk) that, unlike pop, have never been huge money makers. Their lone Hot 100 hit was “Battle Hymn of the Republic” in 1959. Their live performances in the Salt Lake area are presented with free admission, including the big ones in July and December. For an album to reach gold it has to sell 500,000 albums. For platinum - 1 million. That is 4.5 million albums sold with those seven albums alone. That is over $40 million. Their other albums must have tanked! Otherwise I can’t see how they are not making money. There is also music and the spoken word broadcast on 2,000 tv and radio stations world wide every single week, that has to be bringing in something, right?
Calm Posted December 21, 2019 Posted December 21, 2019 (edited) Posting for FYI, maybe someone who can do screenshots could add those in. If you do, be sure and note that Nielsen has added his own commentary to the Ensign Peak actual documents, which may or may not be accurate. It would be nice to be able to see them in their original state, without the doctoring. ---- There is a claim that the portfolio is simply a rainy day/end times account. This is contradicted by the document itself. According to page 45, a PP slide about the purposes of the EPA and the portfolio lists to support the following: Quote Prophetic initiatives Budget supplement Backstop the pension plan Backstop the taxable entities Collateral for Church purposes Examples of withdrawals, reads like they anticipated needing to withdraw in some cases, but ended up not needing to: Conference center---0 as covered by budget Temples---same City Creek---1.455 billion over 5 years Beneficial Life---900 million in 2009 Pension/other---underfunded Collateral---about 200 million for Church entities ----- will add purpose of EPA later.. have errands to run. Edited December 21, 2019 by Calm
california boy Posted December 21, 2019 Posted December 21, 2019 5 hours ago, Calm said: Do you disagree that truth can be presented in ways that are either fair or harmful? Or unrealistically positive for that matter? That how truth is presented can create mistrust where no mistrust should exist? For example, over the period of a week someone sees a neighbour’s wife with another man at lunchtime. They are sitting very close together and talking quietly, sometimes laughing, lots of smilies, apparently oblivious to the world. The observer tells the husband about the meeting the first time it happens as well of the other times. She has not told her husband about the meetings nor does she when he asks if she is doing anything interesting that day. Do you think there could be ways that such truth could be presented as harmful with the intent to create mistrust and other ways that would not, rather it was presented as an everyday social encounter? Once mistrust is created, in some people the wife confirming she was with another man would only strengthen the mistrust as one aspect of the accusation being proved is what is focused on, not whether or not that aspect is wrong in itself. Yes, of course. I would say that whether someone is highly influenced by how something is told probably has a lot to do with how much the person receiving the information trusts who or what organization that is being talked about. I tend to read through a story and weight the facts and dismiss the hysterics. I think you do the same. But if I already have reasons to mistrust someone or an organization, then it is more likely to reinforce that opinion. If I have very strong good beliefs in a person or organization, then I would have a more wait and see how the facts shake out attitude. Given how this thread has gone, I would say that is pretty universal behavior.
JAHS Posted December 21, 2019 Posted December 21, 2019 6 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said: http://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-of-jesus-christ-finances 1
alter idem Posted December 21, 2019 Posted December 21, 2019 17 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? Since neither you nor the rest of us are privy to what they know and feel, or the answers to prayers they've received as they try to do the Lord's will for the how his church is run, I'm not sure we are qualified to make a judgment that it is excessive. The difference, I think, in how this is perceived, is whether or not you believe they are righteous men who seek the Lord's will as they oversee the church. I can't foresee the future, and I believe they are called by God, so I'm willing to trust their judgment. And, since they haven't done anything illegal, I don't see the basis for their concerns. 4
Calm Posted December 21, 2019 Posted December 21, 2019 (edited) No luck, will have to type the role of EPA, the last box on page 51 So far the only really useful document appears to be a new staff orientation packet from 2013. Added: never mind, pretty much just a repeat of the top box in the above image. Edited December 21, 2019 by Calm
california boy Posted December 21, 2019 Posted December 21, 2019 1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said: I have been impressed in the past with your ability to completely misconstrue what someone else has written and replace it with something you find easier to attack or dismiss, but I think you've just reached new capacity! In my opinion the whole end of the world narrative and hell being a place of eternal torment is used to frighten people into doing what religion wants them to do. What you quoted is exactly that type of narrative. You may view it differently and you have that right. I view it as I stated, a narrative based on fear. What should be pretty obvious to you by now is that I don't look at things the same way you do. Is that such a surprise? My world experience with the Church has been much different than yours.
alter idem Posted December 21, 2019 Posted December 21, 2019 7 hours 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. I don't believe he's made the whole thing up, but I believe he's embellishing and his accusations that it's doing something illegal taxwise, seem to be false. IMO, it doesn't have to be totally made up to be harmful, it can be harmful if there is some false or misleading information along with some truth. I certainly believe the fund exists and I think it is wise for the church to have amassed a large sum of money, if they were able to do that. As I said, I'm glad we've got money, it makes us less vulnerable to those who would like to see the church damaged and destroyed. I'm not willing to believe the whistle blowers claims completely, I'd have to see some proof. I bet the amount is wrong, but I doubt the church would clear it up, they likely won't say anything. Even maybe let our enemies think we've got tons of money.... IMO, money is seen as power, protection and security. 3
Hamba Tuhan Posted December 21, 2019 Posted December 21, 2019 Just now, california boy said: In my opinion the whole end of the world narrative and hell being a place of eternal torment is used to frighten people into doing what religion wants them to do. What you quoted is exactly that type of narrative. You do realise that nothing I quoted mentions the end of the world, hell or eternal torment, though, right? 2
california boy Posted December 21, 2019 Posted December 21, 2019 6 minutes ago, alter idem said: I don't believe he's made the whole thing up, but I believe he's embellishing and his accusations that it's doing something illegal taxwise, seem to be false. IMO, it doesn't have to be totally made up to be harmful, it can be harmful if there is some false or misleading information along with some truth. I certainly believe the fund exists and I think it is wise for the church to have amassed a large sum of money, if they were able to do that. As I said, I'm glad we've got money, it makes us less vulnerable to those who would like to see the church damaged and destroyed. I'm not willing to believe the whistle blowers claims completely, I'd have to see some proof. I bet the amount is wrong, but I doubt the church would clear it up, they likely won't say anything. Even maybe let our enemies think we've got tons of money.... IMO, money is seen as power, protection and security. I pretty much feel the same way as you. Those that have a lot of faith in Church leadership will not be swayed by his framing his information in the worst possible light. Those that already don't trust Church leadership will just add this to the list of things to be upset about. They would probably have done that anyway just with the finding out about the existence of a 100 billion dollar fund. 1
california boy Posted December 21, 2019 Posted December 21, 2019 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: You do realise that nothing I quoted mentions the end of the world, hell or eternal torment, though, right? Nevermind. Edited December 21, 2019 by california boy
smac97 Posted December 21, 2019 Posted December 21, 2019 KSL just published this: Church presiding bishop details how tithing are used Some excerpts: Quote The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints published three videos by church leaders and a summary Friday of the ways it uses tithing and donations, saying its approach was misrepresented in recent media stories about a former church employee who filed an IRS complaint about the church’s financial reserves. Presiding Bishop Gérald Caussé, who helps manage the faith’s temporal affairs, offers a response in the videos to a report earlier this week that the church has a reserve fund of $100 billion. “It’s about building a reserve of the church, and ultimately, all of those funds will be used for church purposes,” he said. He added that investing the reserves is intended to make sure their value increases to be used in the future for the same purposes. The summary provided with the videos said that aid given to individual church members and families adds up to “billions more dollars in assistance.” The summary did not provide a dollar figure for the annual expense. However, the church has not previously published any figure to describe the aid distributed within its 30,500 congregations. The volunteer bishops and branch presidents who lead the faith’s congregations use funds from the church’s welfare program to help men, women and children both inside the church and out with food, housing and other needs on a daily basis. The summary provided with the videos said the church directs tithing and donations to provide humanitarian aid in 197 countries, build and maintain temples that connect families, fund the construction and maintenance of meetinghouses and supports a global program of 399 missions and 65,000 missionaries, according to the summary. The church also provides funds for the religious and university education of 793,000 students each year. “The sacred funds donated by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are an expression of faith, devotion and obedience to the biblical law of tithing and a desire to build Christ’s church through living the two great commandments to love God and neighbor,” the summary said. We’re so careful, so very, very careful to make certain that those funds are expended in a way that they would feel good about. –Bishop Dean M. Davies ... Friday’s summary included other details, many of which have been reported before. Latter-day Saint Charities has provided $2.2 billion in aid in 197 countries since 1985, as reported earlier this week by the Deseret News. Tithing funds are used to operate the church’s 166 operating temples. Another 15 temples are under construction, and plans have been announced to build an additional 36 for a total of 217. The genealogical work that surrounds each temple is supported by FamilySearch, the faith’s nonprofit organization that offers free genealogical resources to all. Its meetinghouses provide not only space for Sunday worship services and activities during the week, they host community education courses and family history research and support emergency response activities when necessary. While the church’s 65,000 missionaries or their families or sponsors each provide $500 a month to support their missionary service, tithing and donations fund the mission homes and offices, missionary apartments, automobiles, travel and more. Thanks, -Smac 4
alter idem Posted December 21, 2019 Posted December 21, 2019 6 hours 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? Don't you think you're being a bit of a wet blanket? Do you have any numbers on how much the Christmas concerts cost the members? Do they hire stars, or do they give them the royalties from the cd and dvds made? Do you think the average members pay for this? I don't believe it comes out of their pockets. When I've gone to the Christmas concert, it was free and open to all the public, not just members and lots of people in the community enjoy the concerts--they are free and top notch!! Downtown is packed when they have these free concerts, and free performances in the Joseph Smith Memorial building and Temple square for all to enjoy. A lot of people could not afford to attend something of that professional level, it's a service given to the community. It is an expense that the church pays for the electricity, heat, etc.--but they already own the venue and have to pay for upkeep and the tab choir and symphony aren't paid. I think they likely pay for the guest celebrities to fly there, then pay for their hotel, food, etc, but that's what any decent host would do. I don't know what or if they are paid other than that. But, I don't see why anyone should begrudge this nice gift offered to the whole community to celebrate our Savior's birth (which is the big reason they do it) and counter the total commercial and material takeover of the Christmas holiday to help bring the true spirit of Christmas into focus. 3
The Nehor Posted December 21, 2019 Posted December 21, 2019 18 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? A mass exodus into some wilderness somewhere due to persecution and/or climate change? Taking care of the Ten Tribes when they come out of the North? Rebuilding a devastated Missouri short even on yellow dogs? On a less spectacular level dealing with a massive famine or a disease pandemic. Something that does not destroy the economic system entirely but where the church needs huge amounts of funds to aid their people and ease the suffering of others as well. 2
smac97 Posted December 21, 2019 Posted December 21, 2019 7 hours ago, Tacenda said: Quote 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. Thanks for your comments Smac! To the bold, then hopefully the church will go easy on the Christmas concerts in downtown SLC. The concerts that are given . . . to entertain and uplift the members of the Church and the general public? 7 hours ago, Tacenda said: I wonder what the cost is by hiring stars etc. to perform. Why is it only the average members that must sacrifice? As opposed to . . . whom? Whom else in the Church are you thinking of (other than "average members")? Aren't we all so categorized? If the General Authorities were putting on these concerts in some sort of exclusive enclave, if they were only admitting themselves and family members and friends, if they were charging exorbitant prices for tickets (such as would preclude "average members" of limited means from attending), then I could perhaps see your point. As it is, however, I do not quite understand your complaint here. "The Church" hosts these concerns for the benefit of its members and the general public. These concerts are free of charge. How is this a problem? 7 hours ago, Tacenda said: 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. My understanding is that the Church has been doing a lot of research as to ways to communicate its message to people in the world. The written word is, of course, essential. But we live in a digital age. We live in an age where people watch moving images on TV, on the computers / tablets / phones, in movie theaters, and soon. YouTube. Streaming services. This is they way people communicate ideas now. Is it possible, then, that the Church is attempting to tailor its message in ways that maximize the chances that people out in the world will pay attention? In other words, those videos may not be your cuppa, but they may be useful in spreading the Gospel to others. 7 hours ago, Tacenda said: So don't you think the church leaders could sacrifice more in that dept as well? What "dep{artment}" are you referencing here? And what sort of "sacrifice" is it that you think "average members" are asked to make that "church leaders" are not? 7 hours ago, Tacenda said: Because when there isn't enough in the budget, it is coming out of the pockets of the saints in their ward's auxillaries. Hmm. I can't really speak to that. Our ward's activities generally stay within allocated budgets. Extra out-of-pocket expenditures aren't really a thing. 7 hours ago, Tacenda said: And they already seem to be bled dry, with being asked to pay more on fast offerings, and of course their time/tithing. "Bled dry?" Are you trying to be provocative here? 7 hours ago, Tacenda said: I don't mind being asked to sacrifice, but why not the church sacrifice as well? Again, I do not understand what you are saying here. Who is "the church" if not its members? Who are the people that, in your view, are A) not "average members" and B) are not "sacrificing" or contributing to the Church? Thanks, -Smac 3
The Nehor Posted December 21, 2019 Posted December 21, 2019 8 hours ago, california boy said: So basically it is based on fear. Ok thanks I call what you describe hope. Hope for a better world.
rockpond Posted December 21, 2019 Posted December 21, 2019 56 minutes ago, Calm said: Posting for FYI, maybe someone who can do screenshots could add those in. If you do, be sure and note that Nielsen has added his own commentary to the Ensign Peak actual documents, which may or may not be accurate. It would be nice to be able to see them in their original state, without the doctoring. ---- There is a claim that the portfolio is simply a rainy day/end times account. This is contradicted by the document itself. According to page 45, a PP slide about the purposes of the EPA and the portfolio lists to support the following: Examples of withdrawals, reads like they anticipated needing to withdraw in some cases, but ended up not needing to: Conference center---0 as covered by budget Temples---same City Creek---1.455 billion over 5 years Beneficial Life---900 million in 2009 Pension/other---underfunded Collateral---about 200 million for Church entities ----- will add purpose of EPA later.. have errands to run. I'm curious about collateral. Why would church entities need collateral?
The Nehor Posted December 21, 2019 Posted December 21, 2019 22 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: 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. On the other hand, we've got the right idea in that we have our own bank in our own country where our leader is the supreme monarch. It's hard for us to break our own laws that way (Yes, tongue in cheek with the Vatican Bank scandals clearly on my mind. I'm glad Pope Francis has been cleaning house there) I admit I thought of you when I saw that and had to include it. Thought you would enjoy. 1
The Nehor Posted December 21, 2019 Posted December 21, 2019 7 hours ago, Duncan said: 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 If I were the head of the IRS I would be tempted to say that we would be glad to look into it but do not have the resources. Probably would be politically unwise to do but it would make me laugh if this happened as I personally am a strong supporter of increasing funding to the IRS as it is a net profit positive for the government to do so and the only cost is to those who flout the law and you do not need to increase taxes or cut spending.
rockpond Posted December 21, 2019 Posted December 21, 2019 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: OK, then. But it seems to be a standard talking point, not just with you but with other critics as well. Nearly everything we discuss with respect to church finances is supposition because so little is publicly known. I've acknowledged that repeatedly - it's why I believe the church should publish financial reports.
The Nehor Posted December 21, 2019 Posted December 21, 2019 5 hours ago, rockpond said: Well -- Nielsen did say that his "Letter to an IRS Director" was an homage to Runnels' "Letter to a CES Director". Just as I haven't read the CES Letter, I don't plan to read Neilsen's doc either. But, it sounds like Nielsen may have mimicked more than just Runnels' title. He also admits outright that he released it publicly instead of just to the IRS because he knows how long federal investigations can take and figured everyone needed to know right now. Also that the whole thing needs congressional hearings for some reason. I would have a little more respect for the writer if this document were addressed to everyone in the world and a separate more “legal” document were submitted to the IRS. I admit I find it funny picturing the poor guy in the IRS assigned to read the thing and wondering when the hell this moron is going to get back on track and actually address the supposed tax dodging. 2
The Nehor Posted December 21, 2019 Posted December 21, 2019 19 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: That does appear to be a bit excessive. I get reimbursed for the postage stamps we use for our letter-only ministering assignment. Yeah, and that is normal. I write the checks and do the direct deposits for that all the time.
Recommended Posts