whistleblower on Church finances

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

So how do you define "all things"?  Publishing a budget could fall under all things.  But how far do you take it?  How about selecting someone to speak in sacrament meeting?  That would also seem to fall under the very wide umbrella of "all things."  Does everyone in the ward need to agree on "all things" that are to be done before they are done?

If "all things" that are done in the church need to be approved by common consent of the membership of the church before anything is done, then clearly the church would accomplish very little. Clearly there are limits.

I'm not just trying to be argumentative or contrary, but the idea that "all things" in the church are done by common consent seems unworkable if you define "all" as everything.

So if all doesn't mean everything what does it mean?  Only the thing you think are important?  Or the things I think are?  

I agree.  There must be some limits.  Perhaps we could use a common consent process to find those limits.  My point is just that I believe that “all things” certainly should include a high level understanding of church finances.  It used to be done, even in the days when information was much more difficult to share than it is today.  I think we ought to do it again and let church members use the common consent process in regards to church finances. 

[rockpond]

35 minutes ago, CV75 said:

D&C 26 was a revelation dealing with the upcoming conference. You would have to show how this conference was excepted from the instructions for conferences given in D&C 20 if you want to establish that "all things" goes beyond the scope of what constitutes the "church business" conducted in these conferences.

CFR that "all things" refers to any and all "church administration" (which is not the same as the scriptural term "church business") and that the agenda items constituting "church business" are at the same time established by and then subject to common consent of the general membership before implementing.

The entirety of section 26 in which it does not limit itself to an upcoming conference:

1 Behold, I say unto you that you shall let your time be devoted to the studying of the scriptures, and to preaching, and to confirming the church at Colesville, and to performing your labors on the land, such as is required, until after you shall go to the west to hold the next conference; and then it shall be made known what you shall do.
2 And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith. Amen.

All things by definition would include church administration and business.  It says “all things in the church”. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

The entirety of section 26 in which it does not limit itself to an upcoming conference:

1 Behold, I say unto you that you shall let your time be devoted to the studying of the scriptures, and to preaching, and to confirming the church at Colesville, and to performing your labors on the land, such as is required, until after you shall go to the west to hold the next conference; and then it shall be made known what you shall do.
2 And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith. Amen.

All things by definition would include church administration and business.  It says “all things in the church”. 

This seems to be something of your own making, as you haven't answered my CFR. While the attention of D&C 26 is on the conference, and the law of common consent has applications for both general membership and councils (wherein "all things" is covered), you have not answered my CFR that it is to be used by the general membership to conduct the specific business transactions of the presiding councils which operate under the general common consent granted them in the conferences.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I agree.  There must be some limits.  Perhaps we could use a common consent process to find those limits.  My point is just that I believe that “all things” certainly should include a high level understanding of church finances.  It used to be done, even in the days when information was much more difficult to share than it is today.  I think we ought to do it again and let church members use the common consent process in regards to church finances. 

On that high a level, as "all things" mammon have gotten more voluminous and complex, the application of the law becomes merely an aesthetic exercise (as I think was mentioned earlier in this thread in Daniel Peterson's article); a form of godliness denying the power thereof. It used to be done when the content was not so complex; it is not a matter of available technology for sharing data but of volume and complexity. Even then, only that which the Church authorities deemed in sacred council was essential / expedient to share was shared, just as is done today.

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

This seems to be something of your own making, as you haven't answered my CFR. While the attention of D&C 26 is on the conference, and the law of common consent has applications for both general membership and councils (wherein "all things" is covered), you have not answered my CFR that it is to be used by the general membership to conduct the specific business transactions of the presiding councils which operate under the general common consent granted them in the conferences.

I’ve answered your CFR with section 26 in which the Lord tells the prophet that all thing in the church are to be done by common consent.  All things.  There is no language in that section that restricts it to just one specific conference or that limits the phrase “all things in the church”. 

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

On that high a level, as "all things" mammon have gotten more voluminous and complex, the application of the law becomes merely an aesthetic exercise (as I think was mentioned earlier in this thread in Daniel Peterson's article); a form of godliness denying the power thereof. It used to be done when the content was not so complex; it is not a matter of available technology for sharing data but of volume and complexity. Even then, only that which the Church authorities deemed in sacred council was essential / expedient to share was shared, just as is done today.

I once worked for a multinational company with revenue in the tens of billions of dollars each year.  Every quarter they published financial statements in a booklet of about two dozen pages.  This is not a task that is too complex for our church. 

[Analytics]

On 12/27/2019 at 11:41 PM, smac97 said:

Hmm.  Sounds like there is huge wiggle room there.

Ours is a church with 16 million members.  Thousands of buildings.  Extensive programs and efforts intended to benefit and uplift the members and others.

Meh.  I'm persuaded that neither you nor the BBB is situated to competently adjudicate the proper size of a "rainy day fund" for the Church. 

And holy cow.  Folks (including, notably, no small number of persons who were predisposed to be antagonistic toward the Church well before this story came along) are presuming to criticize a religious group for saving "too much?"  Isn't that, ya know, pretty subjective?  And how much navel-gazing is involved in such a criticism?  Quite a bit, I think.

Oh, brother.  "War chest?"  What does that mean?

Money that they church "might need"?  

Again, this all seems very subjective, very it's-wrong-because-I-say-it's-wrong-because-reasons.

Meanwhile, much of the growth of the Church is in impoverished nations.  If there was ever a time for the Church to emulate Joseph of Egypt's let's-spend-seven-years-storing-up-resources-'cuz-the-day-will-come-when-we'll-really-need-it example, I think right now is a pretty good candidate.

There's that risible rhetoric again.  What is it that you mean by "war chest"?  For what improper purpose do you accuse the Church of saving its funds?

Here it is again.  Three times now.  What do you mean by it?

Four times.  

Again, for what improper purpose do you accuse the Church of saving its funds?

Sounds like special pleading.  From people antagonistic toward the Mormons.

Quelle surprise.

Sounds like Kathleen Flake called it:

Yep.

Thanks,

-Smac

It’s evident that you don’t know very much about corporate and non-profit finance and the issues surrounding capital allocation. It is also clear that you aren’t interested in learning anything about this, especially from me. 

However, you did as a couple of questions multiple times, so I’ll address those questions.

First, you asked repeatedly, “what improper purpose do you accuse the Church of saving its funds?” The question doesn’t make sense because I’m not accusing it of saving the funds for an improper purpose. Rather, I’m accusing it of allocating resources  inefficiently by saving too much and spending too little. The idea that it needs to save now because we are in the 7 years of plenty and need to save for the upcoming 7 years of famine ignores the scale of things: it has been in an intense saving mode for about 60 years and has enough saved to to deal with years of hardship into perpetuity. 

Second, you repeatedly asked what a “war chest” is. A “war chest” in this context is a very large sum of money that is saved up to deal with giant unexpected hardships or is being held to take advantage of huge opportunities that might arise. Given the size of the Church’s expenses, a “rainy day fund” would be on the order of $20 billion. Something on the order of $100 billion can only be thought of as a “war chest.” This term isn’t pejorative. It is descriptive.

 For example:

“We have a ready war chest available to acquire companies,” Malhotra said, adding that the company has reserves of up to 35 billion rupees.”

Or as another example:

“Apple continues to host one of the largest cash piles of any U.S. company, which has resulted in calls for M&A and other investment. It has been busy on the M&A front, announcing last week that it would acquire Intel’s smartphone model division for $1 billion. The deal represents a tiny fraction of Apple’s war chest of cash.”

 

Edited December 29, 2019 by Analytics

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, Analytics said:

It’s evident that you don’t know very much about corporate and non-profit finance and the issues surrounding capital allocation.

I'll own that.

27 minutes ago, Analytics said:

It is also clear that you aren’t interested in learning anything about this, especially from me. 

Well, I'm here.  Answering points, asking questions, etc.

27 minutes ago, Analytics said:

However, you did as a couple of questions multiple times, so I’ll address those questions.

First, you asked repeatedly, “what improper purpose do you accuse the Church of saving its funds?” The question doesn’t make sense because I’m not accusing it of saving the funds for an improper purpose. Rather, I’m accusing it of allocating resources  inefficiently by saving too much and spending too little.

"Saving too much."

"Spending too little."

These are conclusory statements.  I get that you believe them.  I am less sure of why we should.  Argument and persuasion would help.  Because-I-say-so subjectivism, not so much.

27 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The idea that it needs to save now because we are in the 7 years of plenty and need to save for the upcoming 7 years of famine ignores the scale of things:

Funny, I've thought the same thing about you.  That you are ignoring "the scale of things."

27 minutes ago, Analytics said:

it has been in an intense saving mode for about 60 years

I thought EPA's corpus has accumulated during the last 20 or so years.

27 minutes ago, Analytics said:

and has enough saved to to deal with years of hardship into perpetuity. 

Again, this seems hugely subjective.  

It also seems, well, a bit creepy for antagonists and critics of the Church to presume to dictate to it what is "enough" for its finances.  It comes across as pretextual.  No matter what the Church does, our critics will find fault.  So we sort of run into a boy-who-cried-wolf scenario.  It's hard to take critiques seriously when they come from endless naysayers and faultfinders.

27 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Second, you repeatedly asked what a “war chest” is. A “war chest” in this context is a very large sum of money that is saved up to deal with giant unexpected hardships or is being held to take advantage of huge opportunities that might arise.

"War chest" seems like a risible, even provocative, term.  And it seems quite inappropriate "in this context."  The Church isn't preparing for war, or for litigation, or for political purposes, or for some hostile business takeover, or for any other adversarial purpose.

27 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Given the size of the Church’s expenses, a “rainy day fund” would be on the order of $20 billion. Something on the order of $100 billion can only be thought of as a “war chest.” This term isn’t pejorative. It is descriptive.

It sure comes across as pejorative, particularly as applied to an unpopular religious minority.

And we don't know if the $100B figure is accurate, do we?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Given the size of the Church’s expenses,

Have you actual numbers for the Church's expenses and projected expenses say for the next 5 years or just speculation?

The exposé doesn't claim income even for a fact as far as I can see. Pg 20:

Quote

The COP is famously tight lipped about what its total tithes and donations are, but one EPA senior leader suspected in 2019 that they are $6–$7 billion annually....

 

"Suspected"....if I was a money manager, I think I would probably trash any report from my employee that used that word to conclude my business' income.

And it sounds even worse for expenses because he suspects "maybe $5–$6billion in expenses".

He even admits, almost brags no one can know expenses later in the paper, pg 37:

Quote

An apologist might argue that because the COP does spend maybe $5–6billion per year—how would anyone know?—on the church budget (including for-profit business, religious functions, and educational institutions)...

So you can say "given the size of expenses" all you want, but there is no actual "given" according to Nielsen's exposé.

Edited December 29, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

And we don't know if the $100B figure is accurate, do we?

I would like to know what, if any, figures have more than speculation behind then.  "Suspect" and "maybe" and 'who knows?' don't sound like solid ground for an evaluation.

Edited December 29, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

According to this exhibit, EPA is a 509(a) and a 508(c) organization as well.  Can anyone tell me the implications of that?  If I missed it in an earlier post, a link is fine, no need to repeat.

[Calm]

More from the exposé, which seems to actually not be exposing that much in terms of facts, page 49

Quote

The above figures for 2019 are discussed on line 333(page 20)and footnote xx(page 25).Again, these numbers are unconfirmed.

The above figures won't copy, but were $7 billion for annual tithing, $1billion for tithing surplus given to EPA and $200 billion for total assets (used in a formula to determine activity rate of the fund if I understand correctly).  So he keeps putting numbers up as if they mean something even though he himself says they can't be confirmed.  He uses the phrase "if forced to guess" based on adjustment of others' estimates and "sparse internal information" in footnote xx.

The line 333 "discussion" is the "senior leader suspected" partial sentence quoted above.

While he shows extensive calculation of what he thinks should be taxes paid and charity dispensed, I can't find where he comes up with using the four estimates of Reuters, Time, Bloomberg, and Newsweek to come up with his $200.  

It seems to me amounts are typically given and expected to be accepted on faith by Neilsen even if he condemns it from the Church.  His footnotes and other references given as support for the numbers are just further admissions it is primarily speculation.  Maybe he thinks people won't actually check the references or maybe he is just a really bad writer/analyst.

Edited December 29, 2019 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 hours ago, Analytics said:

I’m accusing it of allocating resources  inefficiently by saving too much and spending too little. The idea that it needs to save now because we are in the 7 years of plenty and need to save for the upcoming 7 years of famine ignores the scale of things: it has been in an intense saving mode for about 60 years and has enough saved to to deal with years of hardship into perpetuity. 

These statements only make sense if one thinks he knows the Church's future needs based on the assumption that the Church of the future will look very much like the Church of today. But believing Latter-day Saints -- and this certainly includes the prophets and apostles! -- genuinely expect the Church of Jesus Christ to fulfil its prophetic destiny as the Kingdom of God on the Earth, and they assume therefore that the future needs of the Church will far exceed the needs of the little handful of Saints now assembled.

We have hundreds of thousands, quite possibly millions, of chapels to construct; tens of thousands of temples to erect; and millions of missionaries to send to every nation, kindred, tongue and people. We have newspapers and TV and radio stations to purchase and an online presence to significantly expand -- with new mediums for communication that haven't even been developed yet. We will grow our free and subsidised educational offerings until every human being on this planet has access to quality learning. We will develop our humanitarian resources and reach until we are in a position to bless the whole human family. And we will keep doing all of the above -- and much more! -- 'till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the Great Jehovah shall say the work is done'.

I honestly suspect that this 'revelation' has ruffled so many critics' feathers in large part because it makes it very clear that the faithful membership of the Church, leaders included, have not bought into the narrative that the Church is in decline or that its destiny is anything other than what the Lord has previously told prophets it would be. It also shows a people that not only believes what the Lord has stated but has been brilliantly working to achieve it, and this seems to frighten and/or offend those who would rather see us fail outright or, more subtly, lose track of our mission by morphing into some kind of benign, politically correct charity that our critics can find tolerable.

This isn't going to happen:

Quote

Assemble ye yourselves together ye elders of my church ... call upon the inhabitants to repent, and inasmuch as they do repent, build up churches unto me.

And with one heart and with one mind, gather up your riches that ye may purchase an inheritance which shall hereafter be appointed unto you ...

And the glory of the Lord shall be there, and the terror of the Lord also shall be there, insomuch that the wicked will not come unto it, and it shall be called Zion ...

And it shall come to pass that the righteous shall be gathered out from among all nations, and shall come to Zion, singing with songs of everlasting joy.

And now I say unto you, keep these things from going abroad unto the world until it is expedient in me, that ye may accomplish this work in the eyes of the people, and in the eyes of your enemies, that they may not know your works until ye have accomplished the thing which I have commanded you ...

 

Edited December 29, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan

[Calm]

Plus the exposé states that the US and maybe Canada are the only two self supporting countries.

Numbers show a significant increase of membership in other countries (mostly less developed), thus dropping further the percentage of members in the US.

Just that projection there predicts expenses will be going up faster than income now unless Northern Americans raise the percentage of donations they are giving.

Edited December 29, 2019 by Calm

[Abulafia]

On my fb feed, it was suggested that BK Packer, before his death, was requesting information on the current value of the endowment fund at Ensign Peak Advisors and he was told the information was not available to him.

 

I have no idea if this is the case.. But I did find a public accessible link that gives the current value of many endowment funds across the world.

 

Ensign Peak is currently valued at $124 billion, whilst BYU is just under $2 billion.

 

So what we can say, is that  since 1997, by playing the stock market wisely, the church has become, as an entity, rich beyond measure. 

 

https://www.swfinstitute.org/profile/598cdaa50124e9fd2d05aff2

 

The Church of England's endowment fund is puny in comparison! I know that there was some discomfort in the C of E over *how* monies were invested.  As a result, the Church made efforts to invest ethically rather than for highest returns.  

 

Putting an early Christian spin in this (given LDS claim they are the restored Community of Jesus Messiah), then it seems to me, that no precedent can be found for tithing as it exists in the LDS church today.  Of course one would argue as a faithful member that the First Presidency speak for and on behalf of Jesus..and that is a faith argument that I wouldn't want to disagree with... But in the early communities, Jewish practices were probably still followed, and tithing did go to help the widows and orphans.  Temple and synagogue building, as well house churches and the like, came from taxation (Herod and rebuilding project of temple) and patronage.  As the Didache and Paul highlight, no money was ever asked for and if travelling apostles took advantage of good will, or asked for money, they were charlatans. 

 

For me, most religious institutions today have little in common with the kind of religious communities that Jesus lived among and taught as ideal.  

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

On my fb feed, it was suggested that BK Packer, before his death, was requesting information on the current value of the endowment fund at Ensign Peak Advisors and he was told the information was not available to him.

This is one of the stories told in the Nielsen exposé, he claims the whistleblower (his brother, David) was told this by Willies, who was iirc second in command, but does not say how Willies (who is not said to be present for the conversation between Packer and Clark) was aware of this.

Quote

Ensign Peak is currently valued at $124 billion,

Do you have actual evidence of this or is this speculation from the exposé?

added:  sorry, .i see this is from the link.  I am wondering if they are using the exposé numbers or have another source.

Quote

For me, most religious institutions today have little in common with the kind of religious communities that Jesus lived among and taught as ideal.  

The cultures tend to be rather different these days.  Expecting identical lifestyles seems rather unrealistic to me (not saying you do, but there seems to be an implication in your comment that it would be better).  Jesus seems to have worked well with local customs and such, taking what was available and pushing it to a higher standard rather than ignoring the culture, imo.

Edited December 29, 2019 by Calm

[JamesBYoung]

Are the 15 faithfully fulfilling the parable of the talents?

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

Are the 15 faithfully fulfilling the parable of the talents?

If you interpret the parable as literal counsel to take the Lord’s money and invest/grow it... then, yes. 

[why me]

8 hours ago, Abulafia said:

On my fb feed, it was suggested that BK Packer, before his death, was requesting information on the current value of the endowment fund at Ensign Peak Advisors and he was told the information was not available to him.

 

I have no idea if this is the case.. But I did find a public accessible link that gives the current value of many endowment funds across the world.

 

Ensign Peak is currently valued at $124 billion, whilst BYU is just under $2 billion.

 

So what we can say, is that  since 1997, by playing the stock market wisely, the church has become, as an entity, rich beyond measure. 

 

https://www.swfinstitute.org/profile/598cdaa50124e9fd2d05aff2

 

The Church of England's endowment fund is puny in comparison! I know that there was some discomfort in the C of E over *how* monies were invested.  As a result, the Church made efforts to invest ethically rather than for highest returns.  

 

 

 

For me, most religious institutions today have little in common with the kind of religious communities that Jesus lived among and taught as ideal.  

Most likely, the lds church has invested wisely and profitably. But should this be a surprise? It would be interesting if they would have lost money in the market. The critics would have a wonderful time asking how a true church can lose money in the market and go bankrupt. I think that this is what happened in 1837 with the bank crisis where many members left the fold.

No surprise that times have changed since Jesus' time. And why wouldn't it. We live in a capitalist world now. Such a system did not exist in Jesus' time. Much more different economic system. Now it is all about investing and property. Invest wisely or perish. The church of England seems to be perishing. Christianity is being replaced by the rise Islam and Islamism in Britain in terms of religious belief.

[why me]

3 minutes ago, why me said:

Most likely, the lds church has invested wisely and profitably. But should this be a surprise? It would be interesting if they would have lost money in the market. The critics would have a wonderful time asking how a true church can lose money in the market and go bankrupt. I think that this is what happened in 1837 with the bank crisis where many members left the fold.

No surprise that times have changed since Jesus' time. And why wouldn't it. We live in a capitalist world now. Such a system did not exist in Jesus' time. Much more different economic system. Now it is all about investing and property. Invest wisely or perish. The church of England seems to be perishing. Christianity is being replaced by the rise Islam and Islamism in Britain in terms of religious belief. I believe that they have a high belief rate.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/11/atheism-islam-rise-uk-christianity-suffers-dramatic-decline/

 

 

Edited December 29, 2019 by why me

[JamesBYoung]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

If you interpret the parable as literal counsel to take the Lord’s money and invest/grow it... then, yes. 

Thank you for your opinion

[Abulafia]

30 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

Thank you for your opinion

Given what Jesus is recorded as saying in Matthew 6, I doubt it was an admonition to make money in a bank. 

 

[provoman]

18 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Given what Jesus is recorded as saying in Matthew 6, I doubt it was an admonition to make money in a bank. 

 

What in Matthew 6 do you suggest speaks against savings?

[Abulafia]

Why me said: "The church of England seems to be perishing. Christianity is being replaced by the rise Islam and Islamism in Britain in terms of religious belief. I believe that they have a high belief rate."

The best and most comprehensive stats come from the 2011 Census of the whole of the  UK, including Scotland, Wales and NI.

59% self identify as Christian 

5% as Muslim

25% no religious denomination.

The biggest 2nd language was Polish.

The UK is a diverse and multi faith country.  I count among my friends, Muslims and Hindus.

(Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus fought with the allies in WW2.)

 

 

https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/content/population-demographic-situation-languages-and-religions-93_en

[Abulafia]

2 minutes ago, provoman said:

What in Matthew 6 do you suggest speaks against savings?

“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal; but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."