whistleblower on Church finances

[The Nehor]

23 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

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.

You are basically saying you wish there was a way to get Robin Hood to steal that money.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

More shoddy research in this complaint that is ostensibly for the IRS.

And he took months off of work to do this.  I can think of a number of things I would have included if I did something like this. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Metis_LDS said:

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.   

This is likely to go on for years if they get to the point of debating whether to remove tax exempt status on a church's nonprofit property, who knows who will be in power by that time.

[Amulek]

18 hours ago, ttribe said:

Controls are not perfect and mistakes do get made. 

This isn't about infallibility - it's about implausibility. 

The likelihood that the church's internal controls are so "imperfect" as to allow every single disbursement which has ever occurred over the last 22 years (spanning multiple years, to the tune of $2B) to have been done illegally is functionally zero. 

 

Quote

I suggest letting the investigators do their job and not engaging in speculation that, by default, favors management of these funds. 

I don't see any reason why speculation which favors mismanagement of funds and calls for a formal investigations ought to be preferred. 

I thought we lived in a country where innocence was presumed - unless, of course, the church is involved, right? 

 

Quote

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. 

Here's the thing: is it possible to devise a scenario in which the transfer was illegal? Sure. I'll happily grant that as being a possibility (technically).

But let's be real: it's kind of like devising a scenario in which it would be illegal to drive under the speed limit. I mean, sure, it's possible to come up with a situation where that is the case, but in the real world it just isn't something that happens very often.

In this case, all we have got from the whistleblower's documents is (scant) evidence that the church may have been driving below the speed limit, but there's absolutely no evidence demonstrating that doing so was illegal under the circumstances. 

That doesn't matter to critics though - they are happy to pull the car over merely because of who they saw in the driver's seat. 

Fortunately for us, it will just be an inconvenience and a hassle, because in the real world the church doesn't just go around spending billions of dollars (on multiple projects over multiple years) when there is even a waft of illegality. The very notion that those disbursements weren't thoroughly vetted - including by legal council - is so ridiculous as to be almost not worthy of discussion.

Yet here we are, because whenever there is any sliver of even the possibility of wrongdoing on the church's part - no matter how remote - it has to be dragged out and beaten from every single angle before critics will finally let it go. 

 

Quote

If, however, additional evidence comes to light suggesting there were concealment efforts, that changes the nature of the evaluation considerably. 

Concealment efforts directed towards whom? The IRS? Any evidence that that has been done? Because I certainly haven't seen any. 

 

Quote

Either way, as a forensic accountant and former auditor, I agree [...] that the allegation is worth concern and additional investigation.

Whereas, I have yet to see any evidence of actual malfeasance on the part of the church, and unless / until that changes I see no reason for there to be any sort of official investigation.

 

[Amulek]

On 12/22/2019 at 2:12 AM, The Nehor said:

Oh goodie, now it is getting good. A late stage denial because of blowback? Realizing you will now definitely never work in the financial field again with how public this is? Will we see a lawsuit against his brother.

I need to go pop some popcorn!

Don't leave it in too long or, like David Neilsen, it will get burned.

Sorry, but I'm thinking he is just now realizing what a bad move this was on his part. 

 

Edited December 23, 2019 by Amulek

[smac97]

An article by the Associated Press (apparently written by John G. Turner, Associate Professor of Religious Studies at George Mason University) :

Mormons And Money: An Unorthodox And Messy History Of Church Finances

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[hearserve]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

An article by the Associated Press (apparently written by John G. Turner, Associate Professor of Religious Studies at George Mason University) :

Mormons And Money: An Unorthodox And Messy History Of Church Finances

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Anyone else having problems reaching this site?

[ttribe]

23 hours ago, Calm said:

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?

I'm afraid I don't have the experience or expertise to answer your question on this one.  I would have to do just as much reading as you to see what their determinations have been in the past.

Quote

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).

When I refer to "concealment" I'm referring to how the actual transactions were performed (e.g. routed through which accounts) and recorded in the accounting records; things we won't know unless an investigator takes a look.

Quote

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.

I haven't yet had the time to read the unfortunately-named "Letter to an IRS Director"; I have had several people ask me for my thoughts on it, so I should probably try to squeeze that in.  Between some family issues, the holidays and my prep for a January trial, I haven't been able to carve out some time.

Edited December 23, 2019 by ttribe

[ttribe]

4 hours ago, Amulek said:

This isn't about infallibility - it's about implausibility. 

The likelihood that the church's internal controls are so "imperfect" as to allow every single disbursement which has ever occurred over the last 22 years (spanning multiple years, to the tune of $2B) to have been done illegally is functionally zero. 

"Every single disbursement which has ever occurred over the last 22 years..."?  I'm talking about the allegations of no disbursements and the two to deal with the businesses.  In my experience, mistakes on that scale are certainly plausible.  I'm not sure what you mean by the part of your sentence I quoted.

Quote

I don't see any reason why speculation which favors mismanagement of funds and calls for a formal investigations ought to be preferred. 

I thought we lived in a country where innocence was presumed - unless, of course, the church is involved, right? 

I certainly never said speculation favored mismanagement.  I, for one, favor neutrality on the evidence.  The fact is we have a duly filed set of whistleblower allegations.  In my opinion, such things should be properly vetted and investigated.  I'm assuming nothing in terms of guilt or innocence; this strikes me as an unwarranted assumption on your part in terms of what I've said here.

Quote

Here's the thing: is it possible to devise a scenario in which the transfer was illegal? Sure. I'll happily grant that as being a possibility (technically).

But let's be real: it's kind of like devising a scenario in which it would be illegal to drive under the speed limit. I mean, sure, it's possible to come up with a situation where that is the case, but in the real world it just isn't something that happens very often.

In this case, all we have got from the whistleblower's documents is (scant) evidence that the church may have been driving below the speed limit, but there's absolutely no evidence demonstrating that doing so was illegal under the circumstances. 

That doesn't matter to critics though - they are happy to pull the car over merely because of who they saw in the driver's seat. 

Fortunately for us, it will just be an inconvenience and a hassle, because in the real world the church doesn't just go around spending billions of dollars (on multiple projects over multiple years) when there is even a waft of illegality. The very notion that those disbursements weren't thoroughly vetted - including by legal council - is so ridiculous as to be almost not worthy of discussion.

Yet here we are, because whenever there is any sliver of even the possibility of wrongdoing on the church's part - no matter how remote - it has to be dragged out and beaten from every single angle before critics will finally let it go. 

I don't think the allegation of using charitable funds to prop up for-profit businesses is the legal or moral equivalent of driving under the speed limit (although my lead foot might disagree).  As to your complaining about the actions of "critics," you seem to be hell-bent on making the entire issue one of polemics.  I'm frankly not interested.

Quote

Concealment efforts directed towards whom? The IRS? Any evidence that that has been done? Because I certainly haven't seen any. 

I wasn't saying or implying that any concealment efforts had actually taken place.  I was stating something I would look for were I an investigator on this case and speaking from my own experience as a fraud investigator who has successfully testified in the criminal prosecution of fraudsters.  Additionally, when I spoke of "concealment efforts" I was referring to the method(s) and accounting for the alleged transfer(s).

Quote

Whereas, I have yet to see any evidence of actual malfeasance on the part of the church, and unless / until that changes I see no reason for there to be any sort of official investigation.

You seem to be putting the cart before the horse.  The question at hand is whether the allegations are sufficient to warrant an investigation.  Evidence would be gathered as part of the investigation.  I happen to believe the allegations at least warrant some preliminary inquiries from the Treasury Department; you do not.  As it happens, neither one of us actually matters in terms what will happen.  Since I am not attempting to score any polemic points, I suggest you aim your outrage elsewhere.

[Calm]

 

58 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I haven't yet had the time to read the unfortunately-named "Letter to an IRS Director"; I have had several people ask me for my thoughts on it, so I should probably try to squeeze that in.  Between some family issues, the holidays and my prep for a January trial, I haven't been able to carve out some time.

It is not life altering need, just curiosity. 

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

It is not life altering need, just curiosity. 

I am, understandably, curious...sometimes curiosities win out in the war for my time.

[provoman]

2 hours ago, ttribe said:

I haven't yet had the time to read the unfortunately-named "Letter to an IRS Director"; I have had several people ask me for my thoughts on it, so I should probably try to squeeze that in.  Between some family issues, the holidays and my prep for a January trial, I haven't been able to carve out some time.

Enjoy the read. I do not have accounting/tax training so to me a good portion seemed irrelevant to the over accusations.

[Duncan]

In 2016 then Elder Oaks said they spent 1.2 Billion dollars on Charitable donations but now with the recent email it says they spent 2.2 billion, which of all these figures is correct?

https://www.worldreligionnews.com/religion-news/lds-church-has-spent-1-2-billion-on-welfare-and-humanitarian-efforts

"The Church is committed to helping the poor and needy. Latter-day Saint Charities is a global program that primarily benefits those who are not Latter-day Saints. In times of need and during other emergencies, we partner with many global organizations like the Red Cross to provide assistance. President Russell M. Nelson spoke recently about some of these efforts. And this represents only a small portion of what the Church spends to care for those in need. The most recent annual report shows that the Church's humanitarian arm has given more than $2.2 billion in aid in 197 countries since it was created in 1985. In addition, through the Church's welfare program, leaders of the faith's 30,000-plus congregations regularly help men, women and children with food, housing and other temporal needs, totaling billions more dollars in assistance."

[Calm]

3 years ago gives them 3 years to spend 1 billion to move from 1.2 to 2.2. 

[Duncan]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

3 years ago gives them 3 years to spend 1 billion to move from 1.2 to 2.2. 

I believe you, i'd like to see a breakdown on that billion dollars in 3 years, but I don't think they'd release that info

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I believe you, i'd like to see a breakdown on that billion dollars in 3 years, but I don't think they'd release that info

I don’t either. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, hearserve said:

Anyone else having problems reaching this site?

I haven’t. 
 

But I’m not sure I want to spend the time on it. Can you give a brief abstract of it? 

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I haven’t. 
 

But I’m not sure I want to spend the time on it. Can you give a brief abstract of it? 

Not an abstract,  but extract that conveys the feel for me. 

Quote

The crisis divided the church. At one point that summer, church members wielding pistols and bowie knives fought with each other in the temple. Smith and one of his top associates were convicted of issuing banknotes without a charter and fined $1,000 each. They soon fled the courts and their creditors, taking refuge with fellow church members in Missouri. 

After anti-Mormon mobs forced the Latter-day Saints out of Missouri and then Illinois, Smith’s successor, Brigham Young, led thousands of church members to what became the Utah Territory. 

From a railroad to a shopping mall

The church has never stopped blending commerce and religion.

In the late 1860s, Mormons built the Utah Central Railroad, which connected Salt Lake City with Ogden – a stop along the transcontinental railroad. Church leaders controlled the railway until 1878, when Union Pacific bought it.

Beginning in 1868, the church also operated the Zion’s Cooperative Mercantile Institution, a department store designed to put the squeeze on non-Mormon businesses. 

The church sold the store in 1999, but in many ways its commercial interests have become more grandiose since its frontier days of railroading and retailing.

In 2003, the church’s for-profit real estate division purchased the land on which the store had stood. Nine years later, the estimated $1.5 billion City Creek Center development opened to the public, including a glitzy mall. 

Opens with explanation of current story, then gets into spending a significant amount of the article on the KSS, the above is the transition back more or less to the current controversy. 

I wasn’t really impressed. 

Edited December 24, 2019 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

49 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not an abstract,  but extract that conveys the feel for me. 

Opens with explanation of current story, then gets into spending a significant amount of the article on the KSS, the above is the transition back more or less to the current controversy. 

I wasn’t really impressed. 

So a hatchet job built on ignorant and. sensationalistic reductionism, then. I was afraid it would be that. 
 

Kind of like those who speak of the martyrdom of the prophet as Joseph Smith dying in a “gunfight.” 

Edited December 24, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[JAHS]

Thought I would interject a positive story posted today to remind us of what the church does for others with their resources:

Crosslines Ministries receives 41,000 pounds of food

"A food pantry in Joplin is receiving a big donation just in time for the holidays.
Crosslines Ministries received 27 pallets with more than 41,000 pounds of food.
The large donation came from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in Salt Lake City.
Local members of the church helped to unload every pallet.
People working at Crosslines say they are overwhelmed by such a large donation, but is just in time to help those in need for the holidays.
Executive Director Rodney Rambo said, “Big donation, they gave us several items such as flour and spaghetti that we got in such abundance, that you know we probably won’t need to purchase much of those items this year. So it was really a huge blessing. The Mormon church as well as a lot of different area churches who have been so gracious this time of year have really blessed us.”
Rambo also says the donation almost completely filled their receiving warehouse."

 

Edited December 24, 2019 by JAHS

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, ttribe said:

"Every single disbursement which has ever occurred over the last 22 years..."?  I'm talking about the allegations of no disbursements and the two to deal with the businesses.  In my experience, mistakes on that scale are certainly plausible.  I'm not sure what you mean by the part of your sentence I quoted.

According to the allegations, EPA has never disbursed funds for any purpose other than to deal with the two businesses.

In other words, if you think the allegations are credible, then you would have to believe that every disbursement which has ever occurred over the last 22 years (i.e., the one in 2009 for Beneficial Life, and then the series of payments between 2010 and 2014 for City Creek Center) would all have to have been handled improperly. 

So, while it's trivially true that "[c]ontrols are not perfect and mistakes do get made," I have a hard time believing that every bit of funding they have engaged in over the last 20 years has all been illegal.

It is plausible that a firm could make a mistake - even a big mistake? Sure. But how plausible is that that a firm would only make mistakes? 

Far less so.

So much so, in fact, that it's the kind of accusation that has a hard time even passing the smell test.

 

Quote

I certainly never said speculation favored mismanagement. 

Well, you suggested that we "not engag[e] in speculation that [...] favors management of these funds." 

I honestly don't see why that should be the case - especially since all we have from the whistleblower is speculation that funds were mismanaged. 

 

Quote

I, for one, favor neutrality on the evidence. 

Then I encourage you to take a look at the full expose', because in terms of solid, credible evidence it is severely...wanting. 

 

Quote

The fact is we have a duly filed set of whistleblower allegations.  In my opinion, such things should be properly vetted and investigated.

Fair enough. But that vetting process involves determining the credibility of those allegations and weighing whether or not they provide sufficient evidence to move forward with an investigation in the first place. 

 

Quote

  I'm assuming nothing in terms of guilt or innocence; this strikes me as an unwarranted assumption on your part in terms of what I've said here.

If all you meant by that was that the allegations should be taken seriously, then that's fine. I apologize if I was inferring more than you meant to say or imply.

 

Quote

I don't think the allegation of using charitable funds to prop up for-profit businesses is the legal or moral equivalent of driving under the speed limit (although my lead foot might disagree). 

Actually, I think it's a fairly apt analogy. 

Driving under the speed limit is an activity which may be either legal or illegal depending on the circumstances.

When it comes to EPA paying out monies to for-profit businesses, there are legal ways in which that can be done and there are illegal ways in which that can be done. 

The whistleblower report, however, only provides evidence indicating that monies were paid out. There is no evidence whatsoever that they were paid out illegally. The allegation is completely unfounded.

 

Quote

You seem to be putting the cart before the horse.  The question at hand is whether the allegations are sufficient to warrant an investigation.  Evidence would be gathered as part of the investigation. 

I disagree about who is putting the cart before the horse here. Without sufficient, credible evidence of actual malfeasance, an allegation alone isn't enough to warrant a fishing expedition.

Investigations into wrongdoing need to be based on some sort of evidence of wrongdoing - none of which has been provided in the whistleblower report. 

 

Quote

I happen to believe the allegations at least warrant some preliminary inquiries from the Treasury Department; you do not. 

Oh, I believe the government should consider the allegations. However, when they get around to actually looking at the evidence (and not just the allegations), I'm fairly confident that nothing will end up coming of it.

There's just not much "there" there. 

 

Quote

As it happens, neither one of us actually matters in terms what will happen. 

Agreed!

 

Quote

Since I am not attempting to score any polemic points, I suggest you aim your outrage elsewhere.

For the record, I'm not "outrage[d]" at you or anyone else. Feel free to continue to comment on this topic or not. Either way is fine by me.

And if I don't get back until later in the week, be sure to have a Merry Christmas.  

 

[Danzo]

If anyone  here wants to write "a letter to the director of the IRS",  they should  know the proper title of the head of the IRS is "Commissioner of Internal Revenue"

[Danzo]

One of the allegations seems to be whether Ensign Peaks Advisors is a for profit or a non profit.

Whether Ensign Peaks Advisors is exempt or not would have nothing to  do whether the funds that it manages belongs to a for profit or a non profit.  Non profits often hire for profit companies to manage their investments.

 

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Not an abstract,  but extract that conveys the feel for me. 

Opens with explanation of current story, then gets into spending a significant amount of the article on the KSS, the above is the transition back more or less to the current controversy. 

I wasn’t really impressed. 

So a hatchet job built on ignorant and. sensationalistic reductionism, then. I was afraid it would be that. 

Actually, the bit on the Kirtland Safety Society was one of the better Cliff's Notes breakdowns I have seen on that subject (not that it's something that comes up a lot, of course).

My only quibble would be with the part about them saying something about people losing faith in the currency signed by the prophet's own hand. Not about the losing faith bit - that really happened. It's the "prophet's own hand" part that is not quite correct.

While technically true that the currency bore Joseph Smith Jr.'s signature, he stopped actually signing them himself rather early on. Most of them which bear his signature were actually penned by W.W. Phelps or one of Joseph's other secretaries. So, now you can add that useless bit of trivia to your knowledge bank for the next time you are watching Jeopardy! and the topic "LDS Coin and Currency" pops up on the board. 

Back to the article though, it really didn't have anything at all to say about the current controversy. I didn't get much use out of it - unless it was somehow much longer and I just didn't see a link to a second page or something. 

 

[mnn727]

On 12/19/2019 at 10:28 AM, Tacenda said:

Surely you don't think it's as simple as that. I believe it's that they aren't in keeping with the tax exempt law, of giving a percentage away to charitible organizations from the EPA account. That's it, nothing to do with the church having billions. In fact nothing would be said of it, if it's not tax exempt. But hey I'm glad the church has the billions, in case the members or the rest of the world need some help if it comes to that. But in the here and now, can't a little go to the members as far as ward budgets etc. The LDS members pay tithes to get the church to have the billions, can they just receive some breaks? But I digress, I understand the feelings of many of you of liking the peace that comes from sacrifice and feeling that the church brings so much to your lives in other ways. 

I think you'll find that without having to pay all the Boy Scout fee's there is a lot more $ in the budget for each Ward.