whistleblower on Church finances

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, rchorse said:

This sentence is self-contradictory.

Nope. Just extra-objective.  

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, hoo rider said:

If the allegations are true, then the loss of trust wouldn't come from what the church uses tithing money for.  The loss of trust would be from the church being hypocritical.  Our doctrine is that we should obey the law (see Article of Faith 12, Matthew 22:21).  It would bother me if the church (not just church leaders in their personal lives) was found guilty of not obeying the law.  

I believe the presumption of innocent until proven guilty applies here, so I will withhold judgment until the legal process runs its course.  

The legal process will take many years.  And the Church does it's actions based on solid legal advice.  I"m sure it has figured out loopholes and ways to legally maneuver tons of cash, while taking in huge amounts of income.  But playing the system doesn't seem like a good way forward for a Church.  

[Navidad]

11 hours ago, Nofear said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/mormon-church-has-misled-members-on-100-billion-tax-exempt-investment-fund-whistleblower-alleges/2019/12/16/e3619bd2-2004-11ea-86f3-3b5019d451db_story.html

Prediction: Even after the Church is cleared of any illegalities, the nay-sayers will use this as fuel for complaint and criticism for a long time.

 

edit: if you've reached your monthly limit of free post articles, clear your cookies for their sites and you should be good to go. I would change the unique identification url to be generic but haven't yet looked into their new technique. Stupid trackers.

Sorry, I just can't resist commenting on this. I have heard in ward meetings and in church publications that Church members hesitate to associate with non-Church members or allow their children to associate with non-Church member children because the faithful Church member has higher standards than non-Church members. Thus, associating with non-members might influence them to lower their standards. As a non-member, that has always bothered me. Then in the very first post on this thread I see someone who is apparently a church member offering advice on how to defraud The Washington Post of its income from subscribers - how to read articles you are not entitled to read without having to subscribe! Hmmm . . . now what about those standards? 

[bsjkki]

7 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Tithing is voluntary yet comes with reasonable expectations. Legally in the US, for example, they can be expected to be used for charitable purposes.

There's a difference between wise management and hoarding. No need to conflate the two.

I choose to be concerned about this report and by the lack of transparency in church finances, and I hope it returns to more honesty and openness in that arena.

The church is not a charity. Why do you believe the funds would be used for only ‘charitable’ purposes? Every church I have attended asks for donations that go to operating expenses. I have clearly been taught the different uses of fast offerings vs tithing.

[gtaggart]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I'd like to hear Mike Quinn's response to all of this.

He’ll probably say something in the SLTrib like “the tithing figure is low.”

[provoman]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

I'd say that a rainy-day fund is prudent, but this is no mere rainy-fund by any objective standard.

What is the objective standard that it is not?

How does one objectively determine the amounts of funds for a rainy day?

 

[Danzo]

One interesting thing(to me, anyway) is it appears from the article that this guy and their brother are representing themselves with the whistleblower action.  This seems to me to indicate they don't have big hope of recovering money.  With the amount of money at stake, you would think they would have legal counsel representing them. That they don't, seems to be an indication of how weak their case is 

Edited December 18, 2019 by Danzo

[pogi]

30 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Those who are alleging this have shown, as far as they can, I guess, that the Church takes in approx. 7billion a year in donations for tithing (not including other donations, I guess) and the operating expenses of the Church is around 6 billion a year.  And it was suggested of the 100 billion the church hides away and adds to, with the extra each year, it makes in the range of 7 billion a year.  So if the Church asked everyone to stop paying tithing right now, it'd still be able to build and operate as it does and make money.  Of course what is not in consideration of the other investments and business interests the Church has beyond EPA.  It likely has more worth and has more money making ventures.  

Considering it's wealth has more than 10 times in 20 years, it could have asked members to stop giving it money 20 years ago and would still have been able to operate as it has, or at least similarly.  

Where do we get the 6 billion a year operating expenses from?  Was that leaked too?  

We also have to factor in growth with new temples and church buildings every year... 

 

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Danzo said:

One interesting thing(to me, anyway) is it appears from the article that this guy and their brother are representing themselves with the whistleblower action.  This seems to me to indicate they don't have big hope of recovering money.  With the amount of money at stake, you would think they would have legal counsel representing them. That they don't, seems to be an indication of how week their case is 

Oh it'll go much longer than a week at least.

I wouldn't doubt at all if this has less to do with the law and more to do with making a push for transparency or maybe a push for taxing.  If the Church is doing everything legal this still might have an impact on how donors view their donations.  With enough internal push among members, the Church might feel forced to not require (as in require them as an eternal rule that if they don't obey will keep them from heaven) the poorest of the poor among us to give them money.  

[pogi]

28 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

sacrifice brings blessings.  I don't know that there is any legal recourse here--the whistleblower and his brother seem to think there is and they have gotten some confirmation from experts on the matter.  It'd be nice if the sacrificer's understood up front that their sacrifices went straight to a large growing piggie bank each year, so when Jesus comes again there'll be plenty of dough and to spare.  Instead they were told it went towards building buildings and some were told it went to the poor and needy.  My wife was out with her sister recently.  As they strode around my wife gave some money to people on the street.  Her sister called out as if defensively "I give 10 percent of my money to the poor each month...I don't need to help them now".  My wife congratulated her on giving such a generous fast offering (we having a good idea that she and her husband pull in twice as much as us.  and we do quite well).  To which she responded, "no not fast offerings.  I give 10 percent to tithing".  My wife didn't want to be upsetting nor contentious by letting her know her tithing doesn't go the poor at all, so they went their merry way.  A well educated, and as she would put it, "well-informed" member of the Church confused about donations.  

Well, I have been an advocate for transparency, and I don't disagree that this is going to hurt the confidence of many.  I predict a notable drop in tithing donations after this leak. 

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

Where do we get the 6 billion a year operating expenses from?  Was that leaked too?  

We also have to factor in growth with new temples and church buildings every year... 

 

The whistleblower alleged the 6 billion a year in operating expenses--that would including building and maintaining buildings.  New temples would be included in that expense.  That the Church has been able to increase that helps.  I've argued elsewhere before this all came out that the Church can easily use its appearance of growth even if growth is as minimal as it's been for a century, as a way to keep the based donating for the building up of the kingdom of God.  In truth the Church didn't need any donations to build as it has.  It needed donations to exponentially grow it's net worth.  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

11 minutes ago, provoman said:

What is the objective standard that it is not?

How does one objectively determine the amounts of funds for a rainy day?

 

A rainy day fund is used to cover expenses in a pinch. So Dave Ramsey recommends having six months cash on hand if you lose your job or whatever. This amount of money is nowhere near that by a couple orders of magnitude. The best analogy for this fund is a retirement account. Again at current levels, the church could operate basically forever with no income (it could retire). 

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The legal process will take many years. 

I question that.

20 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

And the Church does it's actions based on solid legal advice. 

Which, if true, militates against the legal process taking "many years" to sort out the propriety of the Church's financial decisions.

20 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm sure it has figured out loopholes

"Loopholes" being shorthand for "complying with the law"?

20 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

and ways to legally maneuver tons of cash, while taking in huge amounts of income.  But playing the system doesn't seem like a good way forward for a Church.  

"Playing the system" would seem to suggest some sort of improper motive, and some sort of nefarious benefit to the decisionmakers.

So . . . what do you suggest is going on?  Are you implying that the leaders of the Church have improper motives?  That they are enriching themselves by misappropriating the tithes of the Church?

What are you saying here?  And what evidence do you have to support what you are saying?

Thanks,

-Smac

[bsjkki]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

Where do we get the 6 billion a year operating expenses from?  Was that leaked too?  

We also have to factor in growth with new temples and church buildings every year... 

 

Yes, those are the leaked numbers. No idea how accurate they are. If it’s true church members donate 7 billion a year, it is impressive. That’s a lot of faith. I wonder during the economic downturn, how much tithing dollars tanked. Those were tough years. The church’s operating expenses would not have changed. 

[pogi]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

New temples would be included in that expense. 

That doesn't make any sense.  If you look at that growth chart, it is not hard to see that a stagnant 6 billion figure cannot account for future growth. 

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I question that.

Which, if true, militates against the legal process taking "many years" to sort out the propriety of the Church's financial decisions.

"Loopholes" being shorthand for "complying with the law"?

"Playing the system" would seem to suggest some sort of improper motive, and some sort of nefarious benefit to the decisionmakers.

Not necessarily.  If they are playing the system, then they could do so with proper motives.  We simply don't know.  

Quote

So . . . what do you suggest is going on?  Are you implying that the leaders of the Church have improper motives?  That they are enriching themselves by misappropriating the tithes of the Church?

What are you saying here?  And what evidence do you have to support what you are saying?

Thanks,

-Smac

Did you read the letter, watch the video?  Just curious.  I'm just basing my comments on them and what others are saying here.  I'm not saying much more than what I've said.  No need to try and put words in my mouth.  

Pogi:

Quote

That doesn't make any sense.  If you look at that growth chart, it is not hard to see that a stagnant 6 billion figure cannot account for future growth. 

That why it's a current mention.  It's not as if the Church took in 7 billion a year in tithing each year for the past 20.  It likely grew as did the operating expense over that time.  

Edited December 17, 2019 by stemelbow

[JAHS]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Oh it'll go much longer than a week at least.

I wouldn't doubt at all if this has less to do with the law and more to do with making a push for transparency or maybe a push for taxing.  If the Church is doing everything legal this still might have an impact on how donors view their donations.  With enough internal push among members, the Church might feel forced to not require (as in require them as an eternal rule that if they don't obey will keep them from heaven) the poorest of the poor among us to give them money.  

All active church members who are full tithe payers (and even many who are not full tithe-payers) would be able to get help through the fast offerings of the church if needed. 

[smac97]

33 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Sorry, I just can't resist commenting on this. I have heard in ward meetings and in church publications that Church members hesitate to associate with non-Church members or allow their children to associate with non-Church member children because the faithful Church member has higher standards than non-Church members.

CFR, please.  Which "church publications"?

Quote

Thus, associating with non-members might influence them to lower their standards. As a non-member, that has always bothered me.

It would have bothered me, too.  Had I ever heard or read such a sentiment.  But I haven't.  To the contrary, I have received nearly non-stop instruction about missionary work, fellowshipping, neighborliness, and on and on.  The Church moves heaven and earth to encourage its members to reach out and foster friendships and relationships with those not of our faith.

To be sure, the Church cautions its members against associating with people who may seek to influence us toward improper behaviors.  For example, consider these excerpts from the Church's For the Strength of Youth pamphlet:

Quote

You are responsible for the choices you make. God is mindful of you and will help you make good choices, even if your family and friends use their agency in ways that are not right. Have the moral courage to stand firm in obeying God’s will, even if you have to stand alone. As you do this, you set an example for others to follow. 
...
Choose to date only those who have high moral standards and in whose company you can maintain your standards.  Remember that a young man and a young woman on a date are responsible to protect each other’s honor and virtue. 
...
To have good friends, be a good friend. Show genuine interest in others; smile and let them know you care about them.  Treat everyone with kindness and respect, and refrain from judging and criticizing those around you. Do not participate in any form of bullying. Make a special effort to be a friend to those who are shy or lonely, have special needs, or do not feel included.

As you seek to be a friend to others, do not compromise your standards. If your friends urge you to do things that are wrong, be the one to stand for the right, even if you stand alone. You may need to find other friends who will support.
...
Invite your friends of other faiths to your Church meetings and activities. Help them feel welcome and included. Many people have joined the Church through the example and fellowship of their friends. Also make a special effort to reach out to new converts and to those who are less active.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 17, 2019 by smac97

[bsjkki]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Oh it'll go much longer than a week at least.

I wouldn't doubt at all if this has less to do with the law and more to do with making a push for transparency or maybe a push for taxing.  If the Church is doing everything legal this still might have an impact on how donors view their donations.  With enough internal push among members, the Church might feel forced to not require (as in require them as an eternal rule that if they don't obey will keep them from heaven) the poorest of the poor among us to give them money.  

When, I was super poor, literally feeding my family eggs and tuna, I resented my tithing. My spouse and I prayed and at that time switched, from paying net to gross tithing. We did not want to resent the money we gave the Lord. 

We saw miracles. Why would you deprive the poor the blessings that come from tithing? I’ve seen this in my ward. We have some struggling families and as they’ve payed their tithing, other miracles have happened in their lives. Those who once were dependent on church assistance, are no longer. Paying tithing helps people.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

12 minutes ago, Danzo said:

One interesting thing(to me, anyway) is it appears from the article that this guy and their brother are representing themselves with the whistleblower action.  This seems to me to indicate they don't have big hope of recovering money.  With the amount of money at stake, you would think they would have legal counsel representing them. That they don't, seems to be an indication of how week their case is 

They filed a whistleblower complaint with the irs. No need for representation. They are not suing the church. The IRS will presumably investigate and determine if there was any wrong doing. I personally doubt it. The church is anything but dumb, and I expect them to be legally in the clear. 
 

https://www.irs.gov/compliance/how-do-you-file-a-whistleblower-award-claim-under-section-7623-a-or-b

[hoo rider]

18 minutes ago, Danzo said:

One interesting thing(to me, anyway) is it appears from the article that this guy and their brother are representing themselves with the whistleblower action.  This seems to me to indicate they don't have big hope of recovering money.  With the amount of money at stake, you would think they would have legal counsel representing them. That they don't, seems to be an indication of how week their case is 

Your comment doesn't make sense to me.  A whistleblower isn't required (or even given the option) to prove non-compliance with the law; that is the role of the prosecutor.  The only role the whistleblower has is to make facts available to the prosecutor that the prosecutor would not otherwise be aware of.  In other words, if a court case is filed it will not be Nielson v. Ensign; it would be IRS v. Ensign.  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

10 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Yes, those are the leaked numbers. No idea how accurate they are. If it’s true church members donate 7 billion a year, it is impressive. That’s a lot of faith. I wonder during the economic downturn, how much tithing dollars tanked. Those were tough years. The church’s operating expenses would not have changed. 

Per the attached documents in the complaint (submitted under penalty of perjury - up to five years in jail) the church has never withdrawn money from this fund to help the church operate. 

[mgy401]

A couple of thoughts (assuming the financial numbers in the allegation are correct):

—The $32 billion in tithing ($12 billion in 1997 and $1 bil/year since then) has not been “misused”.  The Church still has it, in the form of investments that have basically tripled in value; and it has been able to use that income in part to a) keep a life insurance company from going belly-up during the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, and b) to keep afloat a project that no one ever thought would be profitable but was designed to keep Temple Square from turning into a slum.  I don’t find either use morally objectionable; and the fact that Beneficial didn’t immediately go bankrupt in 2009 is a good thing.

—Investment is not the same as “hoarding”.  A vault full of cash helps no one.  Operating capital in publicly-traded firms pays salaries and stimulates growth.

—Investments won’t be worth “zero” at the second coming because fundamentally an investment is in people and groups of people and the work that they do; none of which will completely evaporate when Christ returns.  Even if the Church’s asserts were in the form of cash reserves rather than investments (which, they apparently aren’t)—even in the face of stagflation, a hundred billion dollars  is still $100 billion more than will be held by those people/institutions that had openly disdained saving during the former times of prosperity.

—Spiritually, tithing doesn’t exist to feed the poor or even to sustain the Church.  The paying of tithing changes who we are.  It fosters sacrifice and financial planning and generosity which spill over into other aspects of our lives.  (That’s not a statement of “blind faith” for me; it’s knowledge based on my experience and observation.)  Granted, that would happen regardless of who I paid my tithing to.  But I’m happy to pay to the Church because a) I fundamentally trust its leadership; b) the Church seems to be one of few institutions that’s thinking ahead to the very long term, which I respect; c) I agree with the Church’s overall aims and like the work that it’s doing and want it to be able to do more; and d) the Church has financially been there for me in the past when I was in poverty, and I have full faith that it would do so again if needed.

[Robert F. Smith]

29 minutes ago, gtaggart said:

He’ll probably say something in the SLTrib like “the tithing figure is low.”

Quinn's understanding of the Church and Church finances is very sophisticated.  He'd be able to put this whole baby to rest in short order.

[bsjkki]

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Per the attached documents in the complaint (submitted under penalty of perjury - up to five years in jail) the church has never withdrawn money from this fund to help the church operate. 

I realize that...it’s the rainy day fund/savings.