whistleblower on Church finances

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

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?  

Are you familiar with "Chesterton's Fence?"

Thanks,

-Smac

https://www.swfinstitute.org/fund-rankings/endowment According to this, Ensign Peaks has the largest endowment fund in all of North America. And another figure I saw the other day and c/p'd from another forum...

$100 billion earns $19,178,082 every single day in interest assuming a 7% return. TSCC literally spends 2 days worth of interest on helping the needy every year. 

Might the church just use that interest to help somewhere that won't sink the boat? 

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

TSCC literally spends 2 days worth of interest on helping the needy every year. 

Misrepresentation...first off there is a very good chance spending has increased over the years.  Second that is one source of help from the Church that you are getting the numbers from while the Church has multiple ways of helping.

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

https://www.swfinstitute.org/fund-rankings/endowment According to this, Ensign Peaks has the largest endowment fund in all of North America. And another figure I saw the other day and c/p'd from another forum...

$100 billion earns $19,178,082 every single day in interest assuming a 7% return. TSCC literally spends 2 days worth of interest on helping the needy every year. 

Might the church just use that interest to help somewhere that won't sink the boat? 

Again, 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?

And no need to be nasty ("TSCC"?  Really?).

Thanks,

-Smac

[JamesBYoung]

All . . . please remember, the Trustee, if the Church is dissolved, can give the money to whomever he wants: it could be Trump.

[Tacenda]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, 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?

And no need to be nasty ("TSCC"?  Really?).

Thanks,

-Smac

Oh my gosh, I didn't realize...that was a copy and paste. I saw it on reddit, sorry. But may I ask why not use interest for more help to go out? Or why don't we save our tithing and earn interest as well? And why are we asked to be generous in our fast offerings and they are not? For years I paid much more than the cost of 2 or 3 meals on Fast Sunday.

[Amulek]

18 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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?

In all likelihood, that is exactly what the IRS will do.

The statute of limitations governing audits on non-profits/churches by the IRS is typically 3 years. In extreme cases (which require showing cause) they can go back 6 years, and in the most extreme cases they can go back indefinitely.

Since all of the big-bad 'wrongdoing' happened more than three years ago, there's nothing really for them to go after at this point - too much squeeze for not enough juice.

The idea that they would go all the way back to the inception of the EPA, declare it a taxable entity, and then require them to pay back taxes on every cent they have ever made is the kind of something that will only ever happen in ex-mo/atheist fantasy land. 

 

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, Amulek said:

In all likelihood, that is exactly what the IRS will do.

The statute of limitations governing audits on non-profits/churches by the IRS is typically 3 years. In extreme cases (which require showing cause) they can go back 6 years, and in the most extreme cases they can go back indefinitely.

Since all of the big-bad 'wrongdoing' happened more than three years ago, there's nothing really for them to go after at this point - too much squeeze for not enough juice.

The idea that they would go all the way back to the inception of the EPA, declare it a taxable entity, and then require them to pay back taxes on every cent they have ever made is the kind of something that will only ever happen in ex-mo/atheist fantasy land. 

 

That wouldn't be my fantasy, quite the opposite. I hope the EPA keeps all of it and shares more of it. 😛

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Oh my gosh, I didn't realize...that was a copy and paste. I saw it on reddit, sorry. 

You really need to include links or indicate when you copy paste.

[Tacenda]

Just now, Calm said:

You really need to include links or indicate when you copy paste.

I did say it was copy pasted. 

[Calm]

How about putting something in quotes or better a quote box so we don't assume you are paraphrasing most of a comment?

Edited December 27, 2019 by Calm

[Nofear]

The Ensign Peak Advisors may be on the top of the list for endowments*, but comparing it to the top 100 largest funds https://www.swfinstitute.org/fund-rankings does offer some context.

 

* That the endowment size is apparently public knowledge on a public website seems to belie the Salt Lake Tribune article which claims Boyd K. Packer wasn't even allowed to see the amount, much less details (see thread).

[rockpond]

19 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

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

As I read through this, my initial thought was that as governments fell, earthquakes occurred, and global chaos reigned, investments in stocks and commercial real estate would be nearly worthless.

 But your thought from red text that you quoted is that the prophet will receive enough advance warning of these calamities that he will liquidate before things get bad and use the money to create spaces of refuge for the Saints?

[rockpond]

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Her argument against more financial transparency from the church is that members who are asking for it are actually in a power struggle with leaders.  I think that’s an unwarranted conclusion.

I also want to know my government‘s budget and deficit but that doesn’t mean I’m in a power struggle with my elected officials. 

[CV75]

32 minutes ago, rockpond said:

As I read through this, my initial thought was that as governments fell, earthquakes occurred, and global chaos reigned, investments in stocks and commercial real estate would be nearly worthless.

 But your thought from red text that you quoted is that the prophet will receive enough advance warning of these calamities that he will liquidate before things get bad and use the money to create spaces of refuge for the Saints?

I see two principles at play here, (1) “small means,” wherein funds may decrease and still remain sufficient to accomplish the mission of the Church at the appointed time; and (2) seemingly counterintuitive husbandry which times and balances great and small resources (Jacob 5):

“…by small means the Lord can bring about great things.” (1 Nephi 16:29).

“And the Lord God doth work by means to bring about his great and eternal purposes; and by very small means the Lord doth confound the wise and bringeth about the salvation of many souls.” (Alma 37:7).

“…I may rejoice exceedingly that I have preserved the roots and the branches of the first fruit…” (Jacob 5:60).

“…and they did keep the root and the top thereof equal, according to the strength thereof.” (Jacob 5:73, to prevent the condition described in verse 48). “…that the root and the top may be equal in strength, until the good shall overcome the bad …and thus will I sweep away the bad out of my vineyard.” (Jacob 5:60).

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I see two principles at play here, (1) “small means,” wherein funds may decrease and still remain sufficient to accomplish the mission of the Church at the appointed time; and (2) seemingly counterintuitive husbandry which times and balances great and small resources (Jacob 5):

“…by small means the Lord can bring about great things.” (1 Nephi 16:29).

“And the Lord God doth work by means to bring about his great and eternal purposes; and by very small means the Lord doth confound the wise and bringeth about the salvation of many souls.” (Alma 37:7).

“…I may rejoice exceedingly that I have preserved the roots and the branches of the first fruit…” (Jacob 5:60).

“…and they did keep the root and the top thereof equal, according to the strength thereof.” (Jacob 5:73, to prevent the condition described in verse 48). “…that the root and the top may be equal in strength, until the good shall overcome the bad …and thus will I sweep away the bad out of my vineyard.” (Jacob 5:60).

I don’t have a clue what your point is.  

[CV75]

30 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Her argument against more financial transparency from the church is that members who are asking for it are actually in a power struggle with leaders.  I think that’s an unwarranted conclusion.

I also want to know my government‘s budget and deficit but that doesn’t mean I’m in a power struggle with my elected officials. 

It seems to me that she is pointing out that (as the definitions go), “competing” is a form of “struggling” since both entail the application of power in opposing directions.

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Her argument against more financial transparency from the church is that members who are asking for it are actually in a power struggle with leaders.  I think that’s an unwarranted conclusion.

I think she's substantively correct.  See here:

Quote

Pondering the merit of added transparency for the church’s finances, Flake asks why the church doesn’t simply open up its records.

Her answer: The alleged problem is not about financial malfeasance, “it’s about competing views of what should be done with Church money and who gets to say so.”

“In other words,” Flake concludes, “this is a power struggle ... and one that we’ve seen before from those who don’t understand Mormonism and how it handles its money.”

"Competing views of what should be done with Church money and who gets to say so."

That's what this story is all about.  It's about second-guessing the leaders of the Church.  Fault-finding.  "The Church should spend more on..."  ad infinitum.

One of the better indicators of this, IMO, is that nobody is alleging corruption, mismanagement, or enrichment by those in authority who have access to and control of the Church's wealth.  Pretty much every indicator available is that the money is being managed well, that the Brethren are not enriching themselves, and so on.  So that leaves "competing views of what should be done with Church money and who gets to say so."

31 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I also want to know my government‘s budget and deficit but that doesn’t mean I’m in a power struggle with my elected officials. 

Except that elected officials are elected by, and hence ultimately answerable to, the electorate.  The Brethren are not ultimately answerable to us.

Except that taxes are obtained through the coercive power of government.  Tithes and offerings are voluntary donations.

There are material differences between the two scenarios.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

Just now, rockpond said:

I don’t have a clue what your point is.  

Wise management of current funds would project a reduced future value that remains sufficient to complete the future objectives ("small means") without resorting to excessive spending in the meantime, which can be expected to undermine those objectives (Jacob 5).

[Analytics]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, 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?

And no need to be nasty ("TSCC"?  Really?).

Thanks,

-Smac

From the perspective of the CFO's office, how much should be saved vs. spent depends upon how big the "rainy day fund" already is, as well as what specific costs are on the horizon that need to be saved for.

The BBB Wise Giving Alliance accredits charities that meet its standards of being prudently and wisely administered. The idea is that if you want to donate some money to help homeless dogs, your money will likely make more of an impact if you give to a homeless dog charity that meets its accreditation standards than to one that does not.

http://www.give.org/for-charities/How-We-Accredit-Charities/

The LDS Church doesn't meet many of these standards because its rainy day fund is too big and because it saves too much--at this point, donating to the LDS Church doesn't do much to give the church the resources it needs to preach the gospel, perfect the saints, or redeem the dead. Rather, it just helps the Church grow its war chest that it might need for something someday.

From the perspective of society, if a Church is using most of its annual income to grow its already ginormous war chest, whether the investment income the war chest generates should be tax exempt is a fair question (i.e. the Church's total income is apparently about $14 Billion a year--$7 billion in tithing + $7 billion in investment income. $6 billion goes towards running the church, and $8 billion goes towards growing its war chest). If the Church had to pay a 21% corporate income tax on the $7 billion in earnings, its after-tax income would still be $12.5 billion, which is still plenty to fund the $6 billion of annual expenses. If it didn't want to pay income taxes the answer would be simple--spend the interest on the endowment on charitable or religious purposes rather than simply reinvesting all of it.

From the perspective of members, if having enormous savings is really as important to God as it is to the LDS Church, then maybe members should pay their tithing to their own rainy day funds.

 

 

[rockpond]

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think she's substantively correct.  See here:

"Competing views of what should be done with Church money and who gets to say so."

That's what this story is all about.  It's about second-guessing the leaders of the Church.  Fault-finding.  "The Church should spend more on..."  ad infinitum.

One of the better indicators of this, IMO, is that nobody is alleging corruption, mismanagement, or enrichment by those in authority who have access to and control of the Church's wealth.  Pretty much every indicator available is that the money is being managed well, that the Brethren are not enriching themselves, and so on.  So that leaves "competing views of what should be done with Church money and who gets to say so."

Except that elected officials are elected by, and hence ultimately answerable to, the electorate.  The Brethren are not ultimately answerable to us.

Except that taxes are obtained through the coercive power of government.  Tithes and offerings are voluntary donations.

There are material differences between the two scenarios.

Thanks,

-Smac

For me, tithes and offerings are a separate from how the Brethren choose to utilize sacred funds held by the Church.  I am going to pay my tithes and offerings... full stop.  No qualifiers or caveats.

I think the explanation you've outlined above doesn't capture the true picture.  We are all members of this church.  We are all part of the body of Christ and jointly seeking the kingdom of God.  We are called upon to sustain our leaders.  I believe that we, as members, are responsible for how sacred funds are employed.  It's why the Lord told us to do all things by common consent.

[ksfisher]

25 minutes ago, Analytics said:

From the perspective of society, if a Church is using most of its annual income to grow its already ginormous war chest,

Is this a hypothetical or are you saying the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is putting "most" of it's annual income into a "ginormous war chest."

The amount that I've understood the church is saving from it's annual tithing income is 1/7th.  1/7th doesn't really fit the definition of most.  Perhaps I misunderstand what you're meaning.

[ksfisher]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I believe that we, as members, are responsible for how sacred funds are employed. 

We are responsible for how the sacred funds we are given stewardship over are spent.  The bishop has a stewardship, the primary president, and the Council on the Disposition of the Tithes.  All are accountable to God for their stewardships, but not for the stewardship of another.

[Analytics]

18 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Is this a hypothetical or are you saying the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is putting "most" of it's annual income into a "ginormous war chest."

The amount that I've understood the church is saving from it's annual tithing income is 1/7th.  1/7th doesn't really fit the definition of most.  Perhaps I misunderstand what you're meaning.

I literally mean "most" as in "greater than 50%."

Using the leaked numbers, each year the Church takes in about $7 Billion in tithing revenue and an additional $7 Billion in investment income. That is $14 Billion a year in total income. Of that $14 Billion, it spends about $6 Billion a year on its religious mission and uses the remaining $8 Billion to build up its portfolio of for-profit assets.

[rockpond]

24 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Is this a hypothetical or are you saying the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is putting "most" of it's annual income into a "ginormous war chest."

The amount that I've understood the church is saving from it's annual tithing income is 1/7th.  1/7th doesn't really fit the definition of most.  Perhaps I misunderstand what you're meaning.

@Analytics gave a summary in his post.  If Nielsen's figures are correct, the Church has about $125b in investments through Ensign Peak and real estate holdings.  If you assume a 7% return, the church is earning $8.75b per year in income from those returns which allegedly they are reinvesting.  If they are bringing in $7b in tithes, that's $15.75b income each year.  Of that, they are using $6b for church operational expenses and saving/investing $9.75b.  Acknowledging that this is all based on Nielsen's allegations, the numbers support the "most" claim.

[Tacenda]

58 minutes ago, Analytics said:

From the perspective of the CFO's office, how much should be saved vs. spent depends upon how big the "rainy day fund" already is, as well as what specific costs are on the horizon that need to be saved for.

The BBB Wise Giving Alliance accredits charities that meet its standards of being prudently and wisely administered. The idea is that if you want to donate some money to help homeless dogs, your money will likely make more of an impact if you give to a homeless dog charity that meets its accreditation standards than to one that does not.

http://www.give.org/for-charities/How-We-Accredit-Charities/

The LDS Church doesn't meet many of these standards because its rainy day fund is too big and because it saves too much--at this point, donating to the LDS Church doesn't do much to give the church the resources it needs to preach the gospel, perfect the saints, or redeem the dead. Rather, it just helps the Church grow its war chest that it might need for something someday.

From the perspective of society, if a Church is using most of its annual income to grow its already ginormous war chest, whether the investment income the war chest generates should be tax exempt is a fair question (i.e. the Church's total income is apparently about $14 Billion a year--$7 billion in tithing + $7 billion in investment income. $6 billion goes towards running the church, and $8 billion goes towards growing its war chest). If the Church had to pay a 21% corporate income tax on the $7 billion in earnings, its after-tax income would still be $12.5 billion, which is still plenty to fund the $6 billion of annual expenses. If it didn't want to pay income taxes the answer would be simple--spend the interest on the endowment on charitable or religious purposes rather than simply reinvesting all of it.

From the perspective of members, if having enormous savings is really as important to God as it is to the LDS Church, then maybe members should pay their tithing to their own rainy day funds.

 

 

Thank you for spelling it out in such an organized and intellectual way, I'm way to emotional about these things. My comment keeps being ignored, why can't the church do as we're asked to do when it asks us to pay a generous fast offering. Also, we are expected to pay our tithes yearly, but the church can hold tithes for years?