whistleblower on Church finances

[Duncan]

So, the Church just put this out

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-of-jesus-christ-finances?fbclid=IwAR0-EuXHm-Em0EVTSlrAJFyWycen91H9A8IraFtSq5_fQkw9vGhNq-Aop7k

 

 

Edited December 21, 2019 by Duncan

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

The ultimate financial benefit for Americans and Canadians, whose standard of living compared to other places where there are increasing numbers of Saints, would likely be stability, security.

 Yeah and I hope that would satisfy me but I like mammon........I just hope I do not love it and serve it.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

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?

I don’t have any information to speak of about album sales, so I can’t comment on that. 
 

If I understand the business model correctly (as it was explained to me back when I studied mass communications in college in the 1970s) the providers of a network broadcast (such as “Music and the Spoken Word”) are not paid by the individual stations that carry the broadcast. Rather, it’s the other way around: The networks pay to have their programming carried by the broadcasters. The networks make their money through sponsorships.

In the case of “Music and the Spoken Word,” however, there are no sponsors. The program has always been provided as a free public service (in line with the choir’s purpose, which is to be an adjunct to missionary work). 
 

I have no details on the income flow of the choir organization. I just know from having covered it for the Church News that it is not self-sustaining, that it is one of the entities supported through Latter-day Saint Philanthropies. 
 

Edited to add: Pogi, I found this on the choir’s web site:

”Two of the Choir’s recordings have achieved platinum status (in 1991 and 1992).

“A platinum album is acheived when there are one million copies sold.

---

”Five of the Choir’s recordings have achieved gold status (two in 1963, one in 1980, and two in 1985). 

”Like platinum, a gold refers to sales. A gold album is earned for selling 500,000 copies.”

While these attainments are considerable, they were all achieved many years ago. Furthermore, they occurred back when the choir recorded with commercial record labels. For the past decade or two, the choir and orchestra have recorded on the choir’s own label. 
 

And just because an album does not achieve gold or platinum status, I don’t think it can be said the album has “tanked.” As I pointed out earlier, the choir records in genres that don’t typically bring huge sales. Those tend to come with pop, rock, country or hip hop. 

Edited December 21, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

10 hours ago, california boy said:

So basically it is based on fear. Ok thanks

What is fearful about the Church expanding, eventually to fill the world?

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

And do we need all of those videos?

You would prefer the Church not put out videos educating members?  I thought you were concerned about the Church hiding things or making it difficult to find stuff (videos seem to be the go to media these days for ease of access)

[Calm]

13 hours ago, Amulek said:

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.

 

There have also been a number of variations on this theme since Runnell's published his version.  None of them appear to have caught on from what I have seen (including the fact we rarely, if ever, have been asked about them on FairMormon).

The Nielsen brothers found a way to get free publicity of a pretty massive amount.  I would not be surprised because of that attention if this now stands out along side Runnells' work as the most common references these days for having a faith crisis.  Will have to see in three of four years if it has disappeared like most such efforts or not.

Edited December 21, 2019 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

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.

 

Suppose they continue to choose not to. What then? If one doesn’t have solid information, just go ahead and make it up?

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

You would prefer the Church not put out videos educating members?  I thought you were concerned about the Church hiding things or making it difficult to find stuff (videos seem to be the go to media these days for ease of access)

And for those who can’t be bothered to read (which, alas, seems to be most people these days). 

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

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.

There are two individuals, the whistleblower who worked for ENsign Peak and his brother who made the video/expose at his brother's request.

I am wondering why the brother did the expose and not the original or why both names are not on it.  I am guessing it is like Amulek? speculated and there is some sort of confidence issue David Nielsen is trying to avoid by having Lars do the video...though could be wrong and it was just a matter of having the time, family support, not comfortable in public speaking, or something else.

The commentary says in its intro the whistleblower asked Lars Nielsen to do the expose with any identification of who the whistleblower was, his twin brother, .David's.  It would seem originally there may have been the intent to have David be anonymous, but given there are apparently around ten to twenty employees of Ensign (according to the online info I have seen...LinkedIn, Bloomberg iirc), not much chance of hiding even if including past employees of the last five years I bet....but Lars would have had to be anonymous as well surely.

They obviously could not stop Ensign Peaks from learning about the connection, since same last names and twin brothers (don't know if identical or fraternal, but any diving into family social media will likely bring up both names).

Edited December 21, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

WB {EDIT: Is "WB" intended to be "WP" - "Washington Post"?}

Whistleblower?

Edited December 21, 2019 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

 Just got an email from the Church titled 'How the Church of Jesus Christ Uses Tithes and Donations'. Looks like the prophets are going to make hay with this one.

[rockpond]

31 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Suppose they continue to choose not to. What then? If one doesn’t have solid information, just go ahead and make it up?

What then?  Just the status quo. 

And, no, we don’t make up information.  Not sure why you would suggest something so odd. 

[Duncan]

19 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

 Just got an email from the Church titled 'How the Church of Jesus Christ Uses Tithes and Donations'. Looks like the prophets are going to make hay with this one.

I posted a video!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Scott Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, rockpond said:

What then?  Just the status quo. 

And, no, we don’t make up information.  Not sure why you would suggest something so odd. 

Happens all the time. As in, Church business all originated with tithing money, so they’re all funded by tithing. Or something like that. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

33 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I posted a video!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know, but people have to go looking for videos. An email will reach the entire membership (that has an email address). I suspect they know this issue is a win for them.

[JAHS]

4 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

39 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I posted a video!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know, but people have to go looking for videos. An email will reach the entire membership (that has an email address). I suspect they know this issue is a win for them.

Actually what Duncan posted was a link to the church article (Newsroom) that has the same contents as the Email that was sent to members (it includes a video)

[mrmarklin]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Red is added by Nielsen.

 

So what?  The church in the US can fund anything it wants from tithes. Even invest in for profit entities and bail them out. 

The only deal is that if for profit entities make money, they have to pay taxes. These for profit entities are surely in separate corporations and pay taxes, just like you and me. 

This is Much Ado About Nothing.  To borrow a phrase. 

[Calm]

Page 69 and 72 are a 2013 EPA Policy Book that predicts the ability to liquidate 75% of EPA assets within 3 months.

All of his actual EPA documents are copies from 2013.  There is one email exchange from 2016 that I have no clue what it deals with.  The last page is a 2017 exempt business tax return for Ensign Peak itself.  Not sure about the exempt bit as it has it paying taxes.

Wondering why outside the email there is nothing that looks problematic and nothing recent.

 

Edited December 21, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

 

So what?  The church in the US can fund anything it wants from tithes. Even invest in for profit entities and bail them out. 

The only deal is that if for profit entities make money, they have to pay taxes. These for profit entities are surely in separate corporations and pay taxes, just like you and me. 

This is Much Ado About Nothing.  To borrow a phrase. 

Have you looked at the charts he constructed (as opposed to the EPA new employee orientation pages)? They start at page 40, sprinkled throughout the exhibits. I have no clue what they mean.

https://www.scribd.com/document/439385879/Letter-to-an-IRS-Director

[Calm]

 https://publicsquaremag.org/editorials/the-100-billion-mormon-church-story-a-contextual-analysis/

Quote

But, the story beyond the headline merits a closer look. As you may have read, a whistleblower alleged this week that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ investment arm, Ensign Peak Advisors, potentially violated tax law by building a $100 billion investment fund, with minimal or zero “charitable” distributions. The whistleblower’s report also alleges that the fund made two “illegal” distributions. 

This article is an analysis of the allegations, the facts as I understand them, and the pressing questions many are asking regarding these and other issues related to Church finances. In my estimation, despite the allegations, the facts and applicable law suggest that the Church has not evaded taxes or done anything illegal or improper. 

Many, however, will still wonder whether the Church should distribute more of its reserves to charitable causes, publish more financial information, or if such a large endowment should be taxed. There are many reasonable perspectives on these issues. Below I discuss the potential trade-offs, benefits, and costs associated with such decisions.

 

Edited December 21, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

New info to me:

Quote

And here’s the paradox likely unknown to most people: giving money away effectively is generally much harder than earning it. The problem is that people assume that all giving is good giving when that is not remotely true.

A recent study by my colleagues Curtis Child and Eva Witesman showed that in prosocial initiatives, people are prone to assume only good outcomes and not anticipate bad ones. This is despite the reality that unintended negative consequences and waste are a constant risk of philanthropic giving.  Cutting edge organizations like GiveWell and ImpactMatters are tackling this very issue.

Distributing a huge amount like $100 billion in a way that has a reliable, positive impact would be very, very hard to do, and would require a kind of effort far beyond what people realize. The Gates Foundation in 2018 spent about $1 billion on operations to give away $3.7 billion. They are widely regarded as effective stewards of their assets and are having a commendable impact.

This isn’t to say that the Church shouldn’t do more than it already does, but to do it well would probably require increasing expenses for its staff and operations by $1–2 billion per year, which by the whistleblower’s numbers would be a 30% budget increase.

This reminds of being told back around 2004 iirc that the Church had to be very careful about going into an area when they were providing help.  At one time in the past, they had ended up destabilizing a small town's economy with their aid and overall the town ended up in a worst position.  This is hearsay, but matches the above.  This is probably one reason why the Church often requires significant contribution from the community they are helping and evidence they will be able to sustain the contribution (I am thinking of the Clean Water well work) rather than just going in and giving the community what it needs and funding the contribution for perpetuity.

Edited December 21, 2019 by Calm

[gopher]

19 hours ago, rockpond said:

So as long as it is doing something/anything to help out its members, there is no limit to how much wealth the Church can accumulate?

Have you heard of the Liahona Children's Foundation (now Bountiful Children's Foundation since the Church asked it to change its name)?  It is an organization that was formed specifically to provide nutritional supplements to underweight and malnourished LDS children. LDS children.

And this was done while our Church was allegedly amassing a $100 billion investment portfolio.

How do you just your standard that the Church isn't refusing to help out its members?

ha, I suspected a setup when I answered your question, but I answered anyway.

Looks like the BCF does great work!  I don't see anything on their website about only helping LDS children.  They help children living in poor countries without a strong church presence.

I wonder how other countries will react after hearing the unverified claims of the "whistleblower" about the church's finances.  Will it become even more difficult for missionaries to stay safe in poorer countries?  Will there be more kidnappings and extortion attempts?  Will it become more difficult for the church to stay in countries with corrupt leaders who may now expect bribes or other kickbacks?  I think it is wise for the church to not publish their finances.

[JAHS]

Here's more from Forbes writer Peter Reilly, who had some further conversations with Lars Nielsen and Professor Phillip Hackney who was quoted in the Washington Post story and with Professor Samuel Brunson who wrote a piece for By Common Consent:

More On The Mormon Ensigngate

 

[Metis_LDS]

49 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Here's more from Forbes writer Peter Reilly, who had some further conversations with Lars Nielsen and Professor Phillip Hackney who was quoted in the Washington Post story and with Professor Samuel Brunson who wrote a piece for By Common Consent:

More On The Mormon Ensigngate

 

JAHS Thank you for this.  We can only hope that this is really important enough an issue to support unintended things that might occur because of the two Nielsen brothers action.  

 

1 hour ago, gopher said:

I wonder how other countries will react after hearing the unverified claims of the "whistleblower" about the church's finances.  Will it become even more difficult for missionaries to stay safe in poorer countries?  Will there be more kidnappings and extortion attempts?  Will it become more difficult for the church to stay in countries with corrupt leaders who may now expect bribes or other kickbacks?  I think it is wise for the church to not publish their finances.

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, gopher said:

ha, I suspected a setup when I answered your question, but I answered anyway.

Looks like the BCF does great work!  I don't see anything on their website about only helping LDS children.  They help children living in poor countries without a strong church presence.

I wonder how other countries will react after hearing the unverified claims of the "whistleblower" about the church's finances.  Will it become even more difficult for missionaries to stay safe in poorer countries?  Will there be more kidnappings and extortion attempts?  Will it become more difficult for the church to stay in countries with corrupt leaders who may now expect bribes or other kickbacks?  I think it is wise for the church to not publish their finances.

Ah, we used to see this over-inflation of opportunity in the Lower East Side to shake-up the competition into acquiescence.