whistleblower on Church finances

[JamesBYoung]

Very good, mnn727: either the LDS Church's corporation is in compliance with tax-exempt laws or it is not.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

Very good, mnn727: either the LDS Church's corporation is in compliance with tax-exempt laws or it is not.

US tax law is clear and unambiguous now? Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

[JamesBYoung]

You are laughing at yourself then,

Is the corporation in compliance is the first question to be solved.

[why me]

1 hour ago, JamesBYoung said:

You are laughing at yourself then,

Is the corporation in compliance is the first question to be solved.

Well that is true. However, by calling the church a corporation shows a passive aggressive nature which shows your true intent. Of course you seem to wish for a fault by the lds church in all this. But I think that you may be disappointed. The church member brother of the whistleblower seems to be a little peeved about it all. Lets see how the iron irons. 

[provoman]

6 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

You are laughing at yourself then,

Is the corporation in compliance is the first question to be solved.

If the experts that have been quoted are correct, then EPA has acted in compliance with the tax code.

Interestingly, I do not believe the Neilson brothers cited an applicable code that was violated

[JamesBYoung]

Thank you, sir.

[JamesBYoung]

7 hours ago, why me said:

Well that is true. However, by calling the church a corporation shows a passive aggressive nature which shows your true intent. Of course you seem to wish for a fault by the lds church in all this. But I think that you may be disappointed. The church member brother of the whistleblower seems to be a little peeved about it all. Lets see how the iron irons. 

Only in you hread, why me, is that so.  By corporation, I meant the corporation that was doing the investing.  Your passive aggressive nature is in call here and shows your true intent: to protect the church at all costs.

I am merely saying that the if tax-exempt status of that corporation is being violated, then fix it.  If it is in compliance with tax laws, so be it.,

You pro- and anti-homers for and against the church should be ashamed of yourselves, thinking that ad hom attacks are acceptable lines of rebuttals. I called two such personalities out personally, then cut them off when they started whining that I was picking on them.

All I want are the facts and the truth, period.

[Calm]

Quote

passive aggressive nature

It would be nice if everyone managed to avoid any comments of a personal nature so that mods got some time off for the holidays. 

[why me]

1 hour ago, JamesBYoung said:

All I want are the facts and the truth, period.

This is the problem. We all need to wait for the facts to be heard. However, people are impatient with social media in the background. Without social media, it would have all been played out slowly and patiently.

[JamesBYoung]

Yes, but social media is what it is.

We all need to be patient.

And I have little patience with those who want an apology from the Brethren for whatever reasons: that is not going to happen except when and where they are ready.

 

[The Nehor]

16 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

You are laughing at yourself then,

Is the corporation in compliance is the first question to be solved.

I laugh at myself all the time so there would be nothing disconcerting if that were true.

it is officially a subsidiary of a corporation but it is also a religious with a religious purpose so you have First Amendment issues. The accusation that it must operate as a non profit and meet a minimum tier of spending as the expose insists may not even apply and I would argue does not. In regards to the disbursements is it meeting a religious objective? Yes. Do they qualify as investments? Probably and that is the purpose.

This is a nebulous area of law so I doubt there is precedent or statute covering it. The IRS could take a stand one way or the other (unlikely) and fight it out in the courts. If I were in charge of the IRS I would make no comment and do nothing. There is nothing in the expose that is unambiguously illegal so why mess with it?

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

Yes, but social media is what it is.

We all need to be patient.

And I have little patience with those who want an apology from the Brethren for whatever reasons: that is not going to happen except when and where they are ready.

 

Apologizing would be admitting guilt. They would be fools to publicly apologize.

[rockpond]

On 12/23/2019 at 1:43 PM, 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

 

I think the author sums up this situation well with this statement:  "From my vantage point as a historian of Mormonism, this news marks a new twist on an old story. For nearly two centuries, the church has conducted its finances in ways that defy the expectations Americans have for religious organizations."

I don't think the Church has done anything illegal.  And IRS regulations regarding non-profits seem nebulous.  But the Church certainly defies expectation in how it handles its finances.

[smac97]

54 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think the author sums up this situation well with this statement:  "From my vantage point as a historian of Mormonism, this news marks a new twist on an old story. For nearly two centuries, the church has conducted its finances in ways that defy the expectations Americans have for religious organizations."

I don't think the Church has done anything illegal.  And IRS regulations regarding non-profits seem nebulous.  But the Church certainly defies expectation in how it handles its finances.

Yes.  There have been two comments on this story that have been fairly striking to me.

First (and I can't remember where I saw this, perhaps it was Reilly), there was a comment observing that financial "scandals" involving religious groups typically arise from its leaders spending too much money, and spending it on frippery and expensive toys for the leaders of the religious group (see, e.g., here, as contrasted with this).  Here, the grievance is that the Church is saving too much money.

Second, Dan Peterson makes a rather trenchant point here:

Quote

I note with interest (pun not entirely unintentional) the figure that has been bandied about by the “whistleblower” and his anti-Mormon activist brother and various controversialists:  If I’m not mistaken, they say that the Church takes in approximately seven billion dollars annually in tithing, and that it spends six billion of those dollars on temples and chapels and humanitarian aid and educational subsidies and the like, while putting one billion dollars aside each year for a “rainy day” fund.

By my calculation, that has the Church saving or investing just slightly less than 14.3% of its annual income.  Some critics regard that as exorbitant, unchristian, immoral, and possibly illegal.

But it doesn’t seem exorbitant or excessive to me.  It appears that the Church is simply following its own counsel, given to its members for many generations, on prudent or provident living.

"The Church isn't spending enough!" seems to be failing on a number of levels.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 26, 2019 by smac97

[InCognitus]

17 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't think the Church has done anything illegal.  And IRS regulations regarding non-profits seem nebulous.  But the Church certainly defies expectation in how it handles its finances.

I guess it depends on who you ask.  There are right wing, left wing, chicken wing, and every kind of wing expectations.  But for me, I would expect the church to be doing exactly what it seems to be doing, especially given the way things are supposed to play out in the latter-days.

Edited December 26, 2019 by InCognitus

[smac97]

I'm not sure if anyone has posted this: Loyola University Law Professor Sam Brunson On Transparency In The Mormon Church

And this: THE $100 BILLION ‘MORMON CHURCH’ STORY: A CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS

Thanks,

-Smac

[Metis_LDS]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure if anyone has posted this: Loyola University Law Professor Sam Brunson On Transparency In The Mormon Church

And this: THE $100 BILLION ‘MORMON CHURCH’ STORY: A CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks for these,  I read the second and WOW if that is true (I am not saying it is not,  just that I have no way of knowing) the two brothers are out of luck on the whole thing! 

Edited December 26, 2019 by Metis_LDS
grammar

[Tacenda]

31 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said:

Thanks for these,  I read the second and WOW if that is true (I am not saying it is not,  just that I have no way of knowing) the two brothers are out of luck on the whole thing! 

Let's say you're right but, what if it lit a fire and got the church moving to giving more in ways that will work, then I think the whistleblower and his brother will be happy about that. It usually takes public outcry to get things to change in the church. 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  There have been two comments on this story that have been fairly striking to me.

First (and I can't remember where I saw this, perhaps it was Reilly), there was a comment observing that financial "scandals" involving religious groups typically arise from its leaders spending too much money, and spending it on frippery and expensive toys for the leaders of the religious group (see, e.g., here, as contrasted with this).  Here, the grievance is that the Church is saving too much money.

Second, Dan Peterson makes a rather trenchant point here:

"The Church isn't spending enough!" seems to be failing on a number of levels.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, complaints that the Church is *saving* too much are certainly unique.

I think those complaints arise from looking at the church as more of a traditional non-profit organization, like Salvation Army for example.  If the Salvation Army had an investment portfolio equal to 15x its annual budget and all interest from that investment fund was reinvested each year, people might be less likely to drop spare bills into the bell ringers' kettles.

Of course, the Church isn't the same type of non-profit as the Salvation Army.  But, I think that view (that it should, at least in part, operate that way) may be the source of the critiques of what Nielsen has revealed.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

I guess it depends on who you ask.  There are right wing, left wing, chicken wing, and every kind of wing expectations.  But for me, I would expect the church to be doing exactly what it seems to be doing,

It seems to me that most members view it this way as well.  Some members don't and I think most non- church members expect churches to act more like charities (not a justified position, in my opinion, but I do think that is what's happening).

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

especially given the way things are supposed to play out in the latter-days.

I've heard this tossed around as rationale for the large investment fund.  I'm curious if you'd care to elaborate on how/why this fund becomes useful as things "play out in the latter-days"?  I'm just not sure how it is useful.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Let's say you're right but, what if it lit a fire and got the church moving to giving more in ways that will work,

What does this mean?  "Giving more?"  How much more?  Again, from Daniel Peterson:

Quote

If I’m not mistaken, they say that the Church takes in approximately seven billion dollars annually in tithing, and that it spends six billion of those dollars on temples and chapels and humanitarian aid and educational subsidies and the like, while putting one billion dollars aside each year for a “rainy day” fund.

Why is spending six billion "on temples and chapels and humanitarian aid and educational subsidies and the like" and "putting one billion dollars aside each year for a 'rainy day' fund" not workable?  Why is spending 6/7 of its income and saving 1/7 insufficient?  

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

then I think the whistleblower and his brother will be happy about that. It usually takes public outcry to get things to change in the church. 

Are you familiar with "Chesterton's Fence?"

Thanks,

-Smac

[rodheadlee]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

It seems to me that most members view it this way as well.  Some members don't and I think most non- church members expect churches to act more like charities (not a justified position, in my opinion, but I do think that is what's happening).

I've heard this tossed around as rationale for the large investment fund.  I'm curious if you'd care to elaborate on how/why this fund becomes useful as things "play out in the latter-days"?  I'm just not sure how it is useful.

I saw the international world war automatically break down, and national revolution occur in every country, and complete the work of chaos and desolation. I saw geological disturbances occur, which helped in this work as if it were intended to do so. I saw the Cardston Temple preserved from all of this geological upheaval. I saw the international boundary line disappear as these two governments broke up and dissolved into chaos. I saw race rioting upon the American continent on a vast scale.

 

I saw hunger and starvation in this world; I saw disease produced by hunger, strife and chaos complete the end of this present order or epoch. How long these events were in reaching this consummation I do not know, but my impression was from the outbreak of the international war these things developed into a continuous procession, and almost ran concurrently, as it is with a sickness, the various symptoms are all in evidence at one and the same time, but in different stages of development.

 

My intensified thought was "What of the Church," if such is to become of the Kingdoms of the earth? Was immediately answered by a subconscious statement. "As it is in the church today," and I saw these higher spiritual beings throughout the length and breadth of the air, marshalling their spiritual forces, and concentrating them upon the high officials of your church upon earth.

 

I saw the spiritual forces working upon those officers, impressing and moving them, influencing and warning them. I saw the spiritual forces begin to unfold these things into the minds of your elders and other high officials, especially during their spiritual devotions and official duties, and those activities which exalt the mind of the individual or groups. I saw the impressions take hold and inspire the more receptive and spiritual men, until it was all clearly revealed to them in the way the spiritual patriarch desired.

 

Again I seemed to hear the words, "As it will be." I saw the high officials in council, and under inspired guidance issue instructions to your people to re-consecrate their lives and energies to their faith, to voluntarily discipline themselves, by abstaining from all those forms of indulgence which weaken the body, sap the mentality and deaden the spirit, or waste the income.

 

I saw further on, instructions given whereby places of refuge were prepared quietly but efficiently by inspired elders. I saw Cardston and the surrounding foothills, especially north and west, for miles, being prepared as a refuge for

 

I saw elders still under divine guidance, counseling and encouraging the planting of every available acre of soil in this district, so that large supplies would be near the refuge. I saw the church property under cultivation of an intensified character, not for sale or profit, but for the use of the people. I saw artesian wells and other wells dug all over that territory so that when the open waters were polluted and poisoned that the people of the church and their cattle should be provided for.

 

 

https://www.reliefmine.com/articles/prophecy/93-the-cardston-temple-vision-world-war-iii

an example from the Cardsston Temple Vision

 

 

I saw a liquidation of properties and effects disposed of quietly but quickly by members of the church, as the spiritual influences directed them.

please read the whole vision or at least the last half

Edited December 26, 2019 by rodheadlee
ad info

[smac97]

The Deseret News: Kathleen Flake: ‘Mormonism and its Money’ is a power struggle we’ve seen before

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Why is spending six billion "on temples and chapels and humanitarian aid and educational subsidies and the like" and "putting one billion dollars aside each year for a 'rainy day' fund" not workable?  Why is spending 6/7 of its income and saving 1/7 insufficient?  

I suspect most people see 1/7 in savings as wise and would be approving of being able to save that amount up to a certain amount.  Past the point it becomes an issue of whether or not it is needed.  If it isn't needed, it is viewed as a luxury and a luxury is often seen as something that can be put to a better use, especially helping others.

I think the key for perception about the Church having a rainy say savings account is their expenses or projected needs.  People are assuming the 6 billion a year is correct.  However, if that is significantly low, then attitutudes towards the alleged $100 billion would likely change as people would be more likely okay if that covered 10 years or less of expenses.

----

I think one of the other issues is Nielsen's claim the Church has "no plans" to spend it as in the purpose of the fund is to hoard it and build up money, which is false from what I saw from the EPA documents (also many would see saving for the second coming as no plan at all because they don't think it will happen or they view it as a spiritual event that can't be addressed with money, assume there will be a total collapse where money has no value, etc).  It has several set conditions for the fund's purpose (projects as well as backstopping ongoing projects among other things), it does look in most cases the managers of those projects have also been wise stewards and kept to the budget, so the backup fund was not needed.

There is, imo, no way church leaders have not created a set of plans for different scenarios where the fund where be used.  But at this point the conditions that trigger those plans are not there, so that might convey an idea 'no plans to use it'.  There is a big difference imo between a vague "second coming" plan and detailed response plans.  We may not have information about the latter, but the latter semiconcrete planning style is much more in character with how the Church does things, imo, than the former vagueness.

[Metis_LDS]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Let's say you're right but, what if it lit a fire and got the church moving to giving more in ways that will work, then I think the whistleblower and his brother will be happy about that. It usually takes public outcry to get things to change in the church. 

I do not want any changes.  I have said this before,  one of the greatest sources of my being unhappy was projecting my desires unto the Church.  I am now what I am and the Church is what it is and I feel at peace.  Peace in your soul is a precious thing.  I cherish it.