whistleblower on Church finances

[InCognitus]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

This seems to contradict what he has said elsewhere:

 

Calm's conspiracy theory is sounding more and more likely.

[mgy401]

4 minutes ago, JAHS said:

This post was supposed to be a joke right? You have to figure in all the tithing they and their family have been paying into it as well over the years.

To clarify, I have no problem considering missionaries either “unpaid” or “volunteers”.  The decision to serve represents significant sacrifice and opportunity cost in time and priorities.  

But from a purely financial/mathematical standpoint, I don’t know that the contribution is quite as one-sided a donation as we often think.  

Assume that the missionary is indeed getting an in-kind “living wage” from the Church for 24 months in exchange for a monthly $550 donation.  Over 24 months the missionary is ahead of the game by $17K.

Now let’s try to see whether that is somehow mitigated by past tithes paid.  Remember, only 15% of tithing receipts go into that surplus $100 billion fund; the other 85% is spent more-or-less immediately on buildings, administration, curriculum materials, CES, etc from which the future missionary has already been benefitting just like any other Church member.  So the missionary is *still* getting more than his money’s worth until he has paid at least $113K (15% of $113K = roughly $17K). $113K in tithing, of course, represents over $1.1 million in income.

Mathematically, it seems the only missionaries who have paid more into the system than they’re getting back (and therefore might be said to have “earned” a break), are those from the wealthiest families who don’t really  need that kind of a break to begin with.  

Bottom line:  to look at the Church’s $100 billion rainy day fund and demand it be allocated towards a missionary subsidy, is to ignore the massive missionary subsidies the Church already provides; and is simply one more example of entitled Church members who have no experience accumulating, managing, or preserving wealth nevertheless having all kinds of incompletely-considered ideas about how that wealth should be spent.

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, ttribe said:

  If, in fact, money from charitable donations was transferred from this fund to prop up the insurance company and the mall, it is my suspicion that those in charge probably believed what they were doing was legal.  If, however, additional evidence comes to light suggesting there were concealment efforts, that changes the nature of the evaluation considerably.

If the dispersements did not drop the total value of the fund to the income amount, does assuming the income came from charitable donations make a difference? ($18 billion income leaves $82 billion increase to pay $1.4 billion out of without theoretically 'touching the donation income).  Does the IRS see increase coming from investments of donations as identical to the donations themselves in your knowledge?

Concealment of the transfer or concealment of the source of the funds?  The first seems unlikely given the news of Beneficial getting the boost to keep it solvent was published at the time as I understand it.  If it actually came from tithing and not the real estate venture profit funds as was I believed claimed and that was concealed, I can see that as a potential problem (PR problem for sure, but legally being publicly inaccurate about the source may not be a problem if came from the result of tithing investments instead of real estate investment).

Have you looked at Exhibit C and H.1 to see how the funds flow according to the EPA's 2012 Master plan as well as 2013 New Staff orientation?

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

While Investment Structure or Ex C (page 44) has the Church taking in "Contributions/Revenues" with "Excess Contributions" going to EPA and "Cash Needs" going from EPA back to the Church, is there anything in that which requires "Contributions" to be solely "Tithing Donations"?  

There is also the claim added to the sheet that the money travels one way into the Agricultural and Property Reserves groups, but I am thinking since the sheet is about how investment is handled ( where the money comes from I assume), what PRI and ARI and "Other" do with their profits might be irrelevant to that flow chart...and might have been addressed on another for all we know since there is no claim these were complete packets of EPA's orientation, master plan, or other info for its staff.  Is that a ridiculous idea of mine?  Would it be very sloppy to leave out part of PRI, ARI, and others' cash or investment flow in such a summary?

In support of my idea, exhibit H.1page 53, Fund Flows/Grants has a two way arrow (meaning I assume funds flow both ways, they are identified in the lower left hand corner as "Grants", the line of that is thick which may mean other arrows are funds that are not grants I am thinking) with FRI of which appears ARI seems to be part of.  I don't see PRI there, but Beneficial is under Deseret Management Corp, which is shown as part of DMC Trust (unless the thin lines with no arrows means something different than 'part of') and it has as well a two headed arrow relationship with EPA.  H.1 appears to be a much more detailed explanation of Funds flow than the apparently more global, big picture Investment Structure Exhibit C.

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, pogi said:

If they left the Church long ago, why would his work only become complicated and “unworkable” now because of it?  Why would their request of him to leave the church complicate things for him at work unless he had serious reservations himself?  

I could see tension building at home over time, especially if family became more and more critical (as kids might as they grow).  Or perhaps ultimatums were given.

Otoh, I am open to it all being staged to make David Nielsen look sympathetic and to avoid any attacks as have happened in the past where nonbelievers have hidden their lack of faith when their jobs or schooling were dependent on active standing until they got their pension or graduated.

[Calm]

50 minutes ago, pogi said:

This seems to contradict what he has said elsewhere:

Quote

their findings before they knew about the IRS whistleblower program.

 

As in not knowing about the rewards for a whistleblower?  I find it hard to believe David at least was unaware that the IRS or other government agencies would look into whistleblower complaints.

Quote

The whistleblower law allows for the whistleblower to receive a cut of the unpaid taxes that may be recovered as a result of the complaint, but Nielsen said his brother's motivations are not financial.

But what about Lars, the helper/'did all the hard stuff myself' brother?

Quote

Lars Nielsen is not named in the IRS complaint, and would not be entitled to any money.

Wonder if Lars knew that when he graciously filed his brother's IRS complaint form (the one he helped with) and included his 74 page narrative in the packet for the IRS he claims full ownership of or if he is just naturally helpful.  I wonder who wrote the notarized cover letter.

Quote

 He said his brother has remained quiet so far because he could eventually be involved in litigation.

Or he could let his brother speak for himself for once:

https://www.newsweek.com/mormon-whistleblower-denounces-brothers-media-leaks-church-responds-100-billion-tithing-1478647

Quote

On Friday at 6:30 p.m., Religion Unplugged received a statement from David Nielsen by email that said, "No one has been authorized to speak for me, including my brother, Lars Nielsen. Any public disclosure of information that has been in my possession was unauthorized by me. Repeated attempts to dissuade my brother, Lars Nielsen, from making public disclosures have been ignored. I will have no further comment on this matter."

 

Edited December 23, 2019 by Calm

[JAHS]

27 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

To clarify, I have no problem considering missionaries either “unpaid” or “volunteers”.  The decision to serve represents significant sacrifice and opportunity cost in time and priorities.  

But from a purely financial/mathematical standpoint, I don’t know that the contribution is quite as one-sided a donation as we often think.  

Assume that the missionary is indeed getting an in-kind “living wage” from the Church for 24 months in exchange for a monthly $550 donation.  Over 24 months the missionary is ahead of the game by $17K.

Now let’s try to see whether that is somehow mitigated by past tithes paid.  Remember, only 15% of tithing receipts go into that surplus $100 billion fund; the other 85% is spent more-or-less immediately on buildings, administration, curriculum materials, CES, etc from which the future missionary has already been benefitting just like any other Church member.  So the missionary is *still* getting more than his money’s worth until he has paid at least $113K (15% of $113K = roughly $17K). $113K in tithing, of course, represents over $1.1 million in income.

Mathematically, it seems the only missionaries who have paid more into the system than they’re getting back (and therefore might be said to have “earned” a break), are those from the wealthiest families who don’t really  need that kind of a break to begin with.  

Bottom line:  to look at the Church’s $100 billion rainy day fund and demand it be allocated towards a missionary subsidy, is to ignore the massive missionary subsidies the Church already provides; and is simply one more example of entitled Church members who have no experience accumulating, managing, or preserving wealth nevertheless having all kinds of incompletely-considered ideas about how that wealth should be spent.

OK but in your initial post to me it sounded like you do have a problem calling them unpaid volunteers. I think members consider it more like the top general authorities who get a living allowance to support them as they serve 24/7 for the church. I actually don't have any problem with other religions who do have paid local ministers who also work 24/7 for their congregations.

Paul warned,
"Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake" (Titus 1:11).

Not all paid ministers fall into this category. There are many who have faithfully dedicated their lives to their ministry and accept a salary to take care of their needs as they serve. I think it is  improper for anyone to condemn other Christian churches for compensating their ministers who dedicate their entire lives (like our General Authorities) to serving their local congregations. It all comes down to what is in a person's heart and his attitude about the work he does. Is he preaching false doctrines and only doing it as just a job that earns him a salary and the praise of man (ie "filthy lucre"), or is he doing it to give unselfish service to God and those he ministers to?

 

Edited December 23, 2019 by JAHS

[mgy401]

1 minute ago, JAHS said:

OK but in your initial post to me it sounded like you do have a problem calling them unpaid volunteers. I think members consider it more like the top general authorities who get a living allowance to support them as they serve 24/7 for the church. I actually don't have any problem with other religions who do have paid local ministers who also work 24/7 for their congregations.

Paul warned,
"Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake" (Titus 1:11).

Not all paid ministers fall into this category. There are many who have faithfully dedicated their lives to their ministry and accept a salary to take care of their needs as they serve. I think it is  improper for anyone to condemn other Christian churches for compensating their ministers who dedicate their entire lives (like our General Authorities) to serving their local congregations. It all comes down to what is in a person's heart and his attitude about the work he does. Is preaching false doctrines and only doing it as just a job that earns him a salary and the praise of man (ie "filthy lucre"), or is he doing it to give unselfish service to God and those he ministers to?

 

I apologize if I was unclear.  The point I was trying to make was that the Church already does much, much more for its missionaries than Tacenda seemed willing to give it credit for.

And in the broader spectrum, I can understand why the Church leadership has preferred not to let the full extent of the Church's assets to become common knowledge.  There seem to be an awful lot of folks who, having learned that the Church is loaded, are immediately jumping to the proposition that we should use our wealth to try to eliminate any semblance of sacrifice in our culture and community—as if the work of building a Zion people could be hired out.

[pogi]

34 minutes ago, Calm said:

As in not knowing about the rewards for a whistleblower?  I find it hard to believe David at least was unaware that the IRS or other government agencies would look into whistleblower complaints.

Either way, the claim is that David did indeed help in the expose document and videos.  Why would Lars lie about that? It seems to me both brothers are, and have been, working as equal partners in this from the beginning and intend to split the reward.

I am trying to figure out why David is playing the ‘good, innocent, believing, tithe paying member who is not in it for the money’ card.  I wonder if it is because of potential litigation or legal ramifications against him as an ex-employee leaking documents to the public.  I wonder if he is using Lars as some legal loophole to create plausible deniability - hence the only public thing David has said is to deny that he was involved in the expose.  Well, Lars has said otherwise and I see no reason for him to lie about that.

I personally believe the two are colluding together in all of it, but I can’t prove that.

Edited December 23, 2019 by pogi

[10THAmendment]

4 hours ago, provoman said:

What? Who is attempting to dismiss the allegations by attacking Lars or David?

I don’t like straw man tactics either. 

Edited December 23, 2019 by 10THAmendment

[Calm]

2 hours ago, mgy401 said:

Bottom line:  to look at the Church’s $100 billion rainy day fund and demand it be allocated towards a missionary subsidy, is to ignore the massive missionary subsidies the Church already provides; and is simply one more example of entitled Church members who have no experience accumulating, managing, or preserving wealth nevertheless having all kinds of incompletely-considered ideas about how that wealth should be spent.

The $500 a month is only for certain countries.

In order to estimate how much of missionary cost is likely subsidized, we would need to calculate the difference between what is required of that country if anything and the average wage or some more accurate measure (given wages probably vary with age and the member is more likely in certain countries to be at the low end of income).  My understanding is for some countries, families are actually subsidized for the loss of income the missionary might contribute, but this was in conversation somewhere I can't remember.  I can think of a few people that might know and will ask them.

----

There is one exhibit, exhibit N, which has no title or explanation attached from what I saw, that is used in two different ways in the exposé. The first is in a paragraph concerning "dark money"  Lars Nielsen quotes the whistleblower as saying something along the lines of 'I have no knowledge that it is there, but it could be' (paraphrase obvious I hope) and pointing to Exhibit N as demonstration over 400 offshore accounts that could be hiding this " dark money" (page 22).

Quote

Are there any other bursting mattresses that junior apostles don’t know they are sleeping on? Does the COP have a stash house somewhere else, maybe Switzerland, which even EPA doesn’t know about? The whistleblower has identified 452 offshore accounts thathave received over $11.1 billion from elevenCOP or CPBy357accounts over a ten-year period (Exhibit N).pp ,47The whistleblower said, “I don’t have any direct evidence of COP dark money, but I can’t disprove it. I hope not. But that is the nature of dark money; you don’t know what you don’t see.”

Later we find out this exhibit is actually a table of the subsidizing by the Church of the nonselfsupporting countries (at this time only the US and Canada are self supporting).  And then it turns into a complaint of not giving out too much money in a possible attempt to hide it in "off shore accounts", but a criticism that there is too little money being spent per member as more is given to the investment fund than to the countries.

Quote

The whistleblower was asked by EPA to do a Foreign Exchange risk analysis, which necessitated seeing the COP’s foreign risk activities, which are generally not known to EPA. Part of this analysis revealed that the COP’s outflows (upstream to EPA involvement) to top-off church operating budgets in foreign countries were $11.1 billion over 11 years (2003 to 2013), which happens to be a round figure of $1 billion per year. In 2013, the total church population was reported by the LDS church to be 15.1million members. 56.3% of the total membership was living outside the United States and Canada at that time. The United States and Canada were (and are) the only self-sustaining countries with respect to operating budgets. All other countries require supplements. On a per member basis, this means that the COP effectively sent $118 (U.S. dollars) to support each member in a non-self-sustaining country in 2013 (about $10 per member per month). In general from 2003 to 2013,the COP put more money into its “reserve of the reserves” than it spent on supplementing its members who can’t support themselves

Sorry about the line numbers.  Not sure why they show up sometimes and not others.  I tried to remove them, but may have missed some.

Edited December 23, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Either way, the claim is that David did indeed help in the expose document and videos.  Why would Lars lie about that? It seems to me both brothers are, and have been, working as equal partners in this from the beginning and intend to split the reward.

I am trying to figure out why David is playing the ‘good, innocent, believing, tithe paying member who is not in it for the money’ card.  I wonder if it is because of potential litigation or legal ramifications against him as an ex-employee leaking documents to the public.  I wonder if he is using Lars as some legal loophole to create plausible deniability - hence the only public thing David has said is to deny that he was involved in the expose.  Well, Lars has said otherwise and I see no reason for him to lie about that.

I personally believe the two are colluding together in all of it, but I can’t prove that.

It may not be a lie by either, but both hearing what they want to hear.

Lars doesn't seem to have a problem with adjusting facts to fit whatever picture he wants to draw as evidenced by his multiuse of Exhibit N to accuse the Church of not giving enough money to these accounts right after accusing the Church of excess funding of these same accounts (descriptions:  "off shore accounts" in the first usage and "top-off Church operating budgets in foreign countries" in the second use.

I don't actually trust either of them at this point, as David Nielsen had to give access of the confidential documents to Lars imo and why would he do that unless he expected Lars to create something from them (he could have just shown the exhibits to Lars if he wanted to demonstrate his criticisms were solid, but kept full possession still).

David Nielsen is only saying he didn't give permission to publicize, something both brothers agree on.

Edited December 23, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, 10THAmendment said:

I don’t like straw man tactics either. 

Were you referring to comments about the government then?  It is confusing because you said "especially politics" which would suggest you were referring to more than just the political allusions.

Edited December 23, 2019 by Calm

[JAHS]

Interesting recent article about Lars and his former wife:

"In court papers, she responded to the divorce petition noting that she had a temporary order for protection against her husband, alleging a “documented pattern of intense and violent emotional abuse” and “mental instability (including making suicidal threats).” She said he has falsely characterized her religious practices as extreme.

In a sworn statement in 2012, she said her husband had been pulling away from the life that they had envisioned together for about 18 months.

“He has adopted a secular worldview and rejected the theology of Mormonism. He now wants to put Mormonism on trial,’’ she said.

The protection order ultimately expired and the couple divorced in January 2014. They share custody of their children, and Rebecca Nielsen was given the authority to make religious choices for them. But their disputes continue.

Rebecca Nielsen filed a motion in late October asking the court to appoint a special master to enforce prior court orders. She alleged that Lars Nielsen has denigrated the church and sought to equate it with a cult. She seeks fines and other sanctions against him if he tries to influence his children to shun the church."

His recent actions appear to vindicate his former wife's allegations.
 

[Calm]

Quote

Lars Nielsen told the Star Tribune last week that he stepped away from his job for several months to prepare an hourlong YouTube video, a seven-minute summary version and a 74-page “Letter to the IRS” documenting and explaining his brother’s concerns about the investment fund, which had employed David Nielsen for nearly a decade as an investment manager.

Either he has money to burn, is willing to sacrifice to satisfy some deep seated need, or thinks of the time spent as an investment (hint:  he thinks he is going to get millions from David who gets millions or billions from the IRS).  There may be other reasons, but can't think of them at the moment.

Quote

Lars Nielsen said he met with lawyers and financial experts to prepare the “exposé” before giving it to the IRS and to reporters for the Washington Post and an internet publication called Religion Unplugged.

Doesn’t say he listened to their advice though.

Quote

While the church spends much of its members’ contributions on typical church activities, he said, it takes in far more than it uses 

He claims that the Church takes in 7 billion and uses 6 billion. “Far more” seems an exaggeration if one is talking percentages which is the implication. 

Quote

to be used in the battle of Armageddon....

Hmmm...there is no reference to Armageddon in his narrative. Looks like he is embellishing here, possibly continuing a pattern of such perhaps?

Edited December 23, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

Quote

Lars Nielsen enrolled at Harvard University, where he completed his doctorate in organic chemistry and his master’s of business administration (MBA).

Looks like he has some business background. I am surprised that someone with his obvious brains wrote that paper with its inconsistencies.

Quote

she had a temporary order for protection against her husband, alleging a “documented pattern of intense and violent emotional abuse” and “mental instability (including making suicidal threats).”

If this is accurate, it could explain a lot.  There is shared custody, so it may not be. 

Edited December 23, 2019 by Calm

[provoman]

3 hours ago, 10THAmendment said:

I don’t like straw man tactics either. 

Who is engaging in a straw man tactics?

You made an accusation? I asked who was engaging in ad hom tactics to dismiss the allegations.

By my reading and participation in thread the allegations have been discussed, other claims have been discussed with page, verse, and footnote provided. 

[JAHS]

According to Dan Peterson this is a palace owned by Presiding Bishop Gérald Caussé.

So that's where all the money is going.  🤣

Edited December 23, 2019 by JAHS

[Meadowchik]

6 hours ago, JAHS said:

According to Dan Peterson this is a palace owned by Presiding Bishop Gérald Caussé.

So that's where all the money is going.  🤣

Good Ole Dan seems to be quite focused on defending the church's financials with this recent series.

[Avatar4321]

14 hours ago, mgy401 said:

I apologize if I was unclear.  The point I was trying to make was that the Church already does much, much more for its missionaries than Tacenda seemed willing to give it credit for.

And in the broader spectrum, I can understand why the Church leadership has preferred not to let the full extent of the Church's assets to become common knowledge.  There seem to be an awful lot of folks who, having learned that the Church is loaded, are immediately jumping to the proposition that we should use our wealth to try to eliminate any semblance of sacrifice in our culture and community—as if the work of building a Zion people could be hired out.

The Lord discouraged Hezekiah from parading Israel's wealth before Babylon. When that counsel was disregarded it led to bad things for Israel.

The same spirit that influenced Judas Iscariot is among our critics. Feeding its influence is ill advised.

 

 

[rockpond]

On 12/21/2019 at 7:58 AM, 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.

It wasn’t a setup.  I was trying to understand your position.  And, yes, Lisbon’s (now BCF) has expanded its mission but it was originally founded with the specific mission of helping undernourished LDS children.  The founders saw a problem with LDS kids in poor countries and worked to address it  

I wanted to understand what you meant when you said “as long as the Church isn’t refusing its members”.   What’s the threshold on that?

[rockpond]

On 12/20/2019 at 4:01 PM, pogi said:

I wouldn't necessarily disagree, I think the Church views it that way too, but it is not the same as tithing money.

 

Initially maybe, but if it has been paid back, then it is no longer tithing money that funds it.  If you borrow money from a bank and pay back the loan, is all interest made on the loan considered bank money or loan money?  Nope. 

It is a reasonable assumption.  Look how many companies the Church owns.  It is unreasonable to assume that they are not making huge profits to easily cover any seed money. 

In a scenario where the church takes in an estimated billions in tithing each year and has an alleged $124b investment fund (EPA + real estate per Nielsen) I am honestly not sure what you mean by making “huge profits to cover seed money”. 

So, if I’m understanding you correctly, it’s okay for the church to take a portion of tithes and use those as capital for starting businesses, bailing out struggling church-owned businesses, purchasing real estate, and investing.  Do you feel there should be any sort of limits or requirements on how this is done?  Or because these are all church assets, it’s okay to give them tithing dollars?

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

In a scenario where the church takes in an estimated billions in tithing each year and has an alleged $124b investment fund (EPA + real estate per Nielsen) I am honestly not sure what you mean by making “huge profits to cover seed money”. 

So, if I’m understanding you correctly, it’s okay for the church to take a portion of tithes and use those as capital for starting businesses, bailing out struggling church-owned businesses, purchasing real estate, and investing.  Do you feel there should be any sort of limits or requirements on how this is done?  Or because these are all church assets, it’s okay to give them tithing dollars?

Learning still, but it sounds like the church possibly took from the citizens by the EPA fund not paying taxes possibly? But I really do hope the church won't get billed for half that 124 billion like I've read elsewhere, because I don't trust government spending sometimes. I wish there was a way to take that half and make it useful for the very destitute that need help immediately. And I hope that the Nielsen brothers don't take a dime or only take a small small amount maybe to cover the time it took to lay out their claims. And in the end I hope it is what God would want.

ETA: Piggybacking on this comment, sorry Rockpond, but I think it's this perspective that gets the critics upset...

Edited December 23, 2019 by Tacenda

[The Nehor]

20 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I hope the church changes the missionary amounts. I understand that many believe it's good for missionaries to have to pay towards their missions, but why the increase to $500, and not even a gradual increase. They need to reduce it, it wouldn't make the slightest dent in that 100 billion.

It has been stable for a long time. I like that they move it rarely and do it larger chunks because it makes the accounting easier. If Elder Random goes out and it is 400 a month and he is paying for some of it himself and his parennts, his uncle, and grandmother both in other stakes are contributing to help as well and it increases it can cause all kinds of confusion. It goes up $10 and grandma decides to cover it at the last minute. Uncle offers to and parents are unsure what is going on. Bishop tells the clerk that the family may not know and to transfer $10 from ward mission fund. The fund is overfunded and you cannot refund it. This can be a headache to manage. Keeping changes rare and clear and only applying to missionaries when they head out means it is consistent. Another option would be to allow family to see the specific mission fund and that would be very helpful but it will be a while if that is ever implemented at all.

it is also worth noting that in the expose it was stated that mission costs went from $400 to $500 in some specific countries suggesting of course that that is ridiculous considering how much the church has. That is subjective but what is not subjective is the writer ignorantly said that the rest of the world will continue to pay $400 which is untrue. In other areas not covered by this general counsel (generally poorer areas) the Area Presidencies put in recommendations for how much missionaries and their families should pay so that they have the dignity of contributing without it being financially impossible for missionaries to go out and those numbers are generally very low compared to what US missionaries are paying. More shoddy research in this complaint that is ostensibly for the IRS.

[The Nehor]

17 hours ago, JAHS said:

This post was supposed to be a joke right? You have to figure in all the tithing they and their family have been paying into it as well over the years.

If they garnered any direct benefit from those donations that would set off alarm bells at the IRS.

[Metis_LDS]

15 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

But I really do hope the church won't get billed for half that 124 billion like I've read elsewhere, because I don't trust government spending sometimes.

We can discuss things but some things are more sure than others.  Utah is a Republican State and a President that will remain nameless will need those Utah votes for relection.  SO not much if at will happen to upset the Utah apple cart.  I pass no judgement on this political event type,  I only feel it is what will happen.