whistleblower on Church finances

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

In the UK, the church is regarded as a Charity, and so must file returns with the Charity Commission (not that difficult, and I was a volunteer  responsible for ensuring the balance sheet of a small playgroup charity was filed with the Commission).

What surprised me about the LDS filing is that about 4 to 5 million had been donated by UK members into humanitarian aid, but has just been sitting there in the bank for years.  At some point they'll need to consider worthy causes deserving of help.

 

But if they keep it in the bank, they can grow it.  Maybe they can even invest it and produce some amazing returns that they can then reinvest.

I assume the church’s UK filing doesn’t show them buying any private planes, right?

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I dunno.  I think there is more than a little "financial voyeurism" underlying this story.

Perhaps he should not have used such a risible term.  But I also don't think his "bias" is any secret, either.

Actually, "{d}etailed annual reports were the exception, not the rule."

Moreover, let's take a look at the heyday of the Church's publication of financial statements.  Here's the statement from the April 1942 General Conference:

 

 

 

Would you be satisfied with such "painfully high level" disclosures (which, it seems, did not include disclosure of the amount tithed by the members)?

Okay.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I think there is a good amount of detail in that report.  One done today would, of necessity, be longer since we have money flowing in so many directions.  I think it needs to show total income for the church and how all that income is allocated.  A balance sheet would also bring appropriate.  But they could both (income statement and balance sheet) be at the level of detail shown in this 1942 report. 

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Fundamentally, my biggest question is that if the  church is using tithing, fast offerings, etc for many good things, why would  they not like the members to know???

The prevailing argument seems to be that while the church is doing good things with money received (and leaders are not getting wealthier), the Church doesn’t want to have to answer questions or criticisms about financial decisions. 

[Anonymous Mormon]

I have a question for all of you who are negative and pessimistic about the church's potentially having $100B in savings.

Just two years ago, Michael Quinn had the following estimate for the church's earnings:

Quote

Quinn estimates — and estimating is about the best even a top-notch researcher can do — the church took in about $33 billion in tithing in 2010, based on a model of projected growth rates that followed a consistent pattern starting in the 1950s. It earns another $15 billion annually, he says, in returns on its profit-making investments.

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2017/10/14/historian-digs-into-the-hidden-world-of-mormon-finances-shows-how-church-went-from-losing-money-to-making-money-lots-of-it/

So according to Quinn, the church earns between $33B and $48B p/hr. If these numbers are accurate, then wouldn't a $100B savings fund be appropriate? This means that the church has saved 2 - 3 years of expenses, so that in the event of a global recession, which drastically cuts their tithing revenues, they will be able to continue forward without concern.

Also, does anyone know where the $7B p/year comes from v the $33B p/yr from Quinn? These numbers are so dramatically different.

[smac97]

49 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The prevailing argument seems to be that while the church is doing good things with money received (and leaders are not getting wealthier), the Church doesn’t want to have to answer questions or criticisms about financial decisions. 

I think there are likely a multitude of considerations in play.  

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Fundamentally, my biggest question is that if the  church is using tithing, fast offerings, etc for many good things, why would  they not like the members to know???

I'm not certain the church is opposed to the members themselves knowing, per se,  but there isn't a way to disclose the information to members without the information becoming public - someone will leak it. 

As for why the church might not want the public to know, I can't say with any certainty, but I suspect most of the reasons are largely pragmatic.

First, preparing financial statements isn't a cost free endeavor. Why spend the money to prepare financials when you could be using that same money for something more worthwhile?

Second, the message the church is primarily interested in sharing with the world is that the gospel has been restored to the earth. Talking endlessly about how "wealthy" the church is will likely distract from that message, so why add fuel to the fire? The "LD$, Inc." crowd is already fairly tiresome; why give them numbers to play with as well?

Which brings us to the third reason (in my opinion): the numbers will be used by critics to endlessly complain about how the church ought to be spending its monies. 

Finally, it seems to me that there are some very negative, potential consequences which crop up for those perceived as having wealth - especially great wealth. For example, if the church were to gain a reputation as the wealthiest denomination on the planet, do you not think that information would be used by criminals in impoverished countries to justify things like kidnapping missionaries? I mean, if the church is crazy rich - they can pay up, right? Oh, and while we are on the subject, let's not forget that being considered wealthy and 'other' hasn't always gone well for other religious groups historically (/cough Jews). 

 

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

I have a question for all of you who are negative and pessimistic about the church's potentially having $100B in savings.

Just two years ago, Michael Quinn had the following estimate for the church's earnings:

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2017/10/14/historian-digs-into-the-hidden-world-of-mormon-finances-shows-how-church-went-from-losing-money-to-making-money-lots-of-it/

So according to Quinn, the church earns between $33B and $48B p/hr. If these numbers are accurate, then wouldn't a $100B savings fund be appropriate? This means that the church has saved 2 - 3 years of expenses, so that in the event of a global recession, which drastically cuts their tithing revenues, they will be able to continue forward without concern.

Also, does anyone know where the $7B p/year comes from v the $33B p/yr from Quinn? These numbers are so dramatically different.

Personally, I think Quinn’s estimate is a little high. I know he did a lot of research but it just seems like too much on a per capita basis.

But let’s say he is correct... you are looking at income figures and then taking about 2-3 years of expenses.  We don’t know how big of gap there is between income and expenses. 

[rockpond]

27 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I'm not certain the church is opposed to the members themselves knowing, per se,  but there isn't a way to disclose the information to members without the information becoming public - someone will leak it. 

As for why the church might not want the public to know, I can't say with any certainty, but I suspect most of the reasons are largely pragmatic.

First, preparing financial statements isn't a cost free endeavor. Why spend the money to prepare financials when you could be using that same money for something more worthwhile?

Second, the message the church is primarily interested in sharing with the world is that the gospel has been restored to the earth. Talking endlessly about how "wealthy" the church is will likely distract from that message, so why add fuel to the fire? The "LD$, Inc." crowd is already fairly tiresome; why give them numbers to play with as well?

Which brings us to the third reason (in my opinion): the numbers will be used by critics to endlessly complain about how the church ought to be spending its monies. 

Finally, it seems to me that there are some very negative, potential consequences which crop up for those perceived as having wealth - especially great wealth. For example, if the church were to gain a reputation as the wealthiest denomination on the planet, do you not think that information would be used by criminals in impoverished countries to justify things like kidnapping missionaries? I mean, if the church is crazy rich - they can pay up, right? Oh, and while we are on the subject, let's not forget that being considered wealthy and 'other' hasn't always gone well for other religious groups historically (/cough Jews). 

 

1 - Financial statements are already prepared.  How else would the church complete it’s annual audits.  Also, you would have a really tough time managing assets of this magnitude without financial statements. 

2 & 4 are basically the same issue.  And the fact that the Church has great wealth is already well known.

3 - This is the reason I highlighted as well.  I don’t believe that our leaders want to have the specific questions and criticisms that would arise from publishing financial statements.

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

I have a question for all of you who are negative and pessimistic about the church's potentially having $100B in savings.

Just two years ago, Michael Quinn had the following estimate for the church's earnings:

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2017/10/14/historian-digs-into-the-hidden-world-of-mormon-finances-shows-how-church-went-from-losing-money-to-making-money-lots-of-it/

So according to Quinn, the church earns between $33B and $48B p/hr. If these numbers are accurate, then wouldn't a $100B savings fund be appropriate? This means that the church has saved 2 - 3 years of expenses, so that in the event of a global recession, which drastically cuts their tithing revenues, they will be able to continue forward without concern.

Also, does anyone know where the $7B p/year comes from v the $33B p/yr from Quinn? These numbers are so dramatically different.

The $7 Billion figure comes from the whistleblower.

Quinn looked at actual published tithing reports from 1950 to 1960, saw that tithing grew from $23 million in 1950 to $78 million in 1960. He calculated that as an average annual growth of 12.9% per year. He assumed that growth rate would continue forever, which got us up to $33 billion in 2010. If it actually reached $33 billion in 2010 and continued growing by 12.9% since then, we'd be up to $98 billion a year for 2019.

I admire Quinn's ability to find and compile documents, but I wouldn't consider him very talented at long-term financial forecasts.

Edited December 30, 2019 by Analytics

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Fundamentally, my biggest question is that if the  church is using tithing, fast offerings, etc for many good things, why would  they not like the members to know???

They already publicize they are doing these good things. It is the itemized ‘we paid this much for this good thing’ that they apparently prefer to keep out of public view. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

Also, does anyone know where the $7B p/year comes from v the $33B p/yr from Quinn? These numbers are so dramatically different.

I haven’t yet been able to figure that out from the exposé, but haven’t read the whole thing. However, the numbers I have followed seemed to be just given in one place with a caution that they are unconfirmed and then that is used as ‘documentation’ for later repetitions of the claims. Iirc, there was one place the $7 billion number was followed by a minor rant about the impossibility of knowing in fact. 

Edited December 31, 2019 by Calm

[smac97]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2020/12/30/mormons-and-the-tax-law/#1f30e7701d2c

[Calm]

Fun fact:

Quote

 In 2013, the question of whether housing for volunteers serving as the DC temple in Maryland was exempt from property taxes. The Maryland Court of Appeals overruled the Maryland Tax Court holding that the residence where 50 to 60 ordnance workers, mostly retired married couples, lived was exempt from property taxes. As a convent. I found that kind of amusing.

Good call since he could compute tithe on net after taxes were withheld.  Possibly also pay tithing and get help from fast offerings (might depend on how much he asked for and why he owed taxes).

Quote

Among the living expenses he claimed was his tithe. Failure to tithe would disqualify him from church offices he held making it a matter of religious liberty. The Tax Court was not buying it.

This does seem to me to be the only real issue:

Quote

It really boils down to whether you evaluate Ensign Peak independent of LDS. If that were to turn out to be the case, I think the advisers who recommended this course will end up pretty embarrassed.

 

Edited December 31, 2019 by Calm

[Okrahomer]

9 hours ago, Abulafia said:

In the UK, the church is regarded as a Charity, and so must file returns with the Charity Commission (not that difficult, and I was a volunteer  responsible for ensuring the balance sheet of a small playgroup charity was filed with the Commission).

What surprised me about the LDS filing is that about 4 to 5 million had been donated by UK members into humanitarian aid, but has just been sitting there in the bank for years.  At some point they'll need to consider worthy causes deserving of help.

 

Are we looking at the same report?  If we are, where do you see this surplus?  It looks more like a £4 million shortfall to me.

Edited December 31, 2019 by Okrahomer
Correct the currency symbol

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Okrahomer said:

Are we looking at the same report?  If we are, where do you see this surplus?  It looks more like a £4 million shortfall to me.

The exposé says iirc only Canada and the US are self supporting....just an FYI.  However, that might vary year to year as in 2010 Australia was not supplemented according to the below article.

Income is 47.1 million, spending is 51.1 million...

According to a chart in the financial tab, 2015 had a big income excess, but other years spending was a significant, but not too big overage.

And charitable spending is 108%, 0% income generation or retained (savings?)

Anyone know what the below means

Quote

Trading

This charity has one or more trading subsidiaries

Gift aid

Recognised by HMRC for gift aid

Quote

The historian, who was excommunicated from the LDS Church in 1993 for his writings about early Mormon polygamy, says he was most struck by the money church leaders in Utah directed overseas. Of the six countries, only Australia did not report a supplement from headquarters in 2010.

The church in Canada received $166,728, while the Philippines got $63.8 million — 85 percent of its revenue.

SUBSIDIES TO LDS FOREIGN CONGREGATIONS IN 2010

Canada: $166,728

New Zealand: $17.1 million

Philippines: $63.8 million 

Tonga: $12 million

United Kingdom: $1.8 million 

Source: D. Michael Quinn

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2017/10/15/records-reveal-how-money-from-utah-and-us-mormons-props-up-lds-operations-overseas/

Edited December 31, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

This was published in May 2018, so it is not like the Church has been doing one thing while saying another...even if some are not aware of what it has said:

Quote

Following the principle of preparing for the future, the Church maintains diversified reserves, including stocks, bonds, commercial and residential real estate, and agricultural properties. All funds are invested solely to support the Church’s mission and help prepare for the Lord’s Second Coming. The Church carefully chooses its investments with the help of certified professional financial advisers. The majority of the Church’s reserves are funded through the sacred tithes and offerings given by members. Reserve funds of the Church have historically been used when resources have been scarce or when Church growth has deemed extra resources necessary. These funds provide for the future and ensure necessary resources will continue to be available as the Church grows.

If resources haven't been scare since 1998 and Church income has kept up with Church growth, then the reserve funds would not be expected to be used.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/read-a-summary-of-the-financial-information-released-by-the-church?lang=eng

[bsjkki]

Wrong thread

Edited December 31, 2019 by bsjkki

[Abulafia]

4 hours ago, Okrahomer said:

Are we looking at the same report?  If we are, where do you see this surplus?  It looks more like a £4 million shortfall to me.

It's on page 31.  The balance is £3.004 million (not 4 to 5).  Apologies for getting that wrong, been a while since it came up in discussion elsewhere.  I have an English friend who reviews the figures every year.

Edited December 31, 2019 by Abulafia

[why me]

17 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Good point.

I can see Him now. He is in a dark suit, white shirt, conservative tie and wearing a MAGA hat and the first thing he does is ask to see the church's financial statement. Because that is how true believers see His return.

We have no idea how Jesus dressed. Of course we have artist interpretations. Most likely he was dressed in the style of his day. We also seem to see him wearing one piece of clothing. A white tunic. Most likely he wore other colors too or his clothing would be constantly dirty with dust and dirt. Who washed his clothes? I am sure that he wore a hat too. Or he got sunburned a lot. Or he might come again dressed like George Burns in Oh God with John Denver. A fisherman's cap and shoes that make a noise when walking. Who knows.

[why me]

On 12/30/2019 at 6:11 AM, rockpond said:

As long as church leaders aren’t getting rich and buying private airplanes, I’m satisfied that we’re doing the will of God with sacred funds!

Well, there is something to this. They are not getting rich, living in fancy mansions. So why is the money there? What is the problem? Based on members tithing, the lds church would be quite poor, most likely not able to support building rents. Most members are not millionaires. And like I said just giving all the money to the poor would not serve any purpose as long we have systems that create poverty to begin with.

Edited December 31, 2019 by why me

[JamesBYoung]

On 12/29/2019 at 9:55 AM, rockpond said:

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

Investing and growing monetarily, yes, very successful, but perhaps much less so than investing in and growing people.

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, why me said:

Well, there is something to this. They are not getting rich, living in fancy mansions. So why is the money there? What is the problem? Based on members tithing, the lds church would be quite poor, most likely not able to support building rents. Most members are not millionaires. And like I said just giving all the money to the poor would not serve any purpose as long we have systems that create poverty to begin with.

Yes, giving money to the poor serves no purpose when there are these systems out there that create poverty!

If only we had excess billions that we could use to create new systems!

[rockpond]

38 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

Investing and growing monetarily, yes, very successful, but perhaps much less so than investing in and growing people.

Wait... is it possible that the parable of the talents wasn’t just Edward Jones style investing advice?  Could it be that the parable is actually about taking the blessings we’ve been given and using them to enrich the lives of others?

[sjdawg]

8 hours ago, bsjkki said:

We are disarmed sitting ducks. If you remove a members ability to protect themselves, the church should provide security.

?

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, sjdawg said:

?

Wrong thread....