whistleblower on Church finances

[smac97]

24 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 

I'm not sure about that.  Filing a whistleblower complaint is not particularly difficult.  And getting an attorney involved would likely mean A) paying the attorney up-front and out-of-pocket, or else B) letting the attorney receive a portion of the whistleblower's reward.

I work in a complex area of law (consumer finance / real estate), and I regularly see the disadvantages faced by people who try to represent themselves in legal disputes.  Most simply don't have the training and experience to navigate their suit (or defense) to a successful end (shoot, many lawyers lack the necessary training and experience).  But filing a whistleblower complaint with the IRS seems like a very different scenario.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[bsjkki]

4 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

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.

I’m out of ‘likes.’ Great comment! I read this report and don’t see a ‘scandal.’ I see well managed funds. 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

...............................................

—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.

Absolutely correct.  Jesus' Parable of the Talents makes it clear that He expects us to put His money to work.

3 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

—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.

Moreover, the tithes belong to the Lord, not to us.

[Nofear]

45 minutes ago, Navidad said:

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? 

Well, the Church neither condones nor encourages the level of adblocking I engage in. That is my own sin and hypocrisy, not the Church's.
 

[gtaggart]

20 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

Which is why I quoted him.

18 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

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

 

[Metis_LDS]

A society any society set's it own values.  Let the United States set what it wants I do not judge it.  What I ask is that does the word  "whistleblower" in the USA automatically equate to truth and complete facts.  That any whistleblower is a person to be trusted.  So no need to doubt because it was a "whistleblower".   I am really asking because I do not live in the United States and it is difficult to know from afar.

Edited December 17, 2019 by Metis_LDS
correction

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

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.

Whether it was a "good" use or a misuse of the funds doesn't seem to be the issue being addressed by the whistleblower complaint and the article.  The allegation is that tax exempt revenue was being given to for profit businesses which would be a violation of tax law.  At least that's how I understand it.  I welcome correction.

 

4 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

—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.

I think we have to separate the two things:

1) Payment of Tithes and Offerings - This is a commandment.  We do it out of love, faith, and our desire to be obedient.

2) Use of Funds received as Tithes and Offerings - This is independent of #1.  It is the responsibility of the leaders of the Church to use those funds according to their best understanding of the Lord's will.  And it is the responsibility of the members of the Church to accept their decisions through the process of common consent.

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

—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.

I'm not sure this is totally correct (the "tithing doesn't exist..." part).  From the EOM:

Quote

{Tithing} funds are used for such purposes as the building and maintenance of meetinghouses, temples, and other facilities, as well as for the partial support of the missionary, educational, and Welfare programs of the Church.

And here:

Quote

Through the prophet Malachi, the Lord declared:

“Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it” (Malachi 3:10).

Church members give their tithing donations to local leaders. These local leaders transmit tithing funds directly to the headquarters of the Church, where a council determines specific ways to use the sacred funds. This council is comprised of the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and the Presiding Bishopric. Acting according to revelation, they make decisions as they are directed by the Lord. (See Doctrine and Covenants 120:1.)

Tithing funds are always used for the Lord’s purposes—to build and maintain temples and meetinghouses, to sustain missionary work, to educate Church members, and to carry on the work of the Lord throughout the world.

Humanitarian and welfare work are certainly part of that (see here and here).

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, 10THAmendment said:

Because the majority of tithe payers cant afford the basic necessities of life in places like Latin America, Africa, and a good portion here in the US. Requiring them to pay 10% just to use it to operate shopping malls is evil. 

What if it is God requiring it of them?  Is that still evil?  Or is your position that God would never do something that you don't agree with?  

[Robert F. Smith]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

...................................

2) Use of Funds received as Tithes and Offerings - This is independent of #1.  It is the responsibility of the leaders of the Church to use those funds according to their best understanding of the Lord's will.  And it is the responsibility of the members of the Church to accept their decisions through the process of common consent.

Which is really only possible as "informed consent," which is why transparency is so important.  It tends to nip these problems in the bud.

[provoman]

39 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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). 

I do not believe that establishes an objective standard.

What is the amount a world wide organization needs/should set aside/have in reserve presumably for the entire population if earth?

How much grain did Egypt save during the years of plenty so the known affected world could survive?

[Robert F. Smith]

45 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

......................... 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.  

Of course, the donations belong to God, not the Church.  The LDS Church as an institution does manage the funds.  It does not "need" the funds, and it does not "need" to grow them exponentially.  The only real question is what does God want done with His funds?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 minutes ago, provoman said:

I do not believe that establishes an objective standard.

What is the amount a world wide organization needs/should set aside/have in reserve presumably for the entire population if earth?

How much grain did Egypt save during the years of plenty so the known affected world could survive?

If it were grain or canned goods then you might have a point. Once the world collapses, this portfolio will be worth zero. 

[rockpond]

28 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

I agree that he has a vast and sophisticated understanding of church finances but I'm not sure he could put this "baby to rest".  My understanding from his book is that he only had data through 2010 and he doesn't have data representing the full picture of church finances.

[Navidad]

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

CFR, please.  Which "church publications"?

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:

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

Hi Smac: I see this discussed in a rather regular fashion in LDS Living - an email newsletter I receive. Is it not an official publication of the  Church? 

[Robert F. Smith]

Just now, rockpond said:

I agree that he has a vast and sophisticated understanding of church finances but I'm not sure he could put this "baby to rest".  My understanding from his book is that he only had data through 2010 and he doesn't have data representing the full picture of church finances.

I didn't think he had.  What I was suggesting was that he would be able to place the "whistleblower" claims in meaningful, dispassionate context.  I would expect him to extrapolate.

[The Nehor]

1997 was when it started?

I believe that was a few years before President Hinckley said in GC that he had made it policy when he became President to put a percentage of the church’s income to be saved against a day of need. Looks like they did.

I also do not see the alleged $100 billion “war chest” as excessive. Harvard has around $40 billion in money saved up to support its mission and the church has way more than three times the annual operating expenses of Harvard. The alleged transfers on the other hand would appear to be troubling in terms of nonprofit status but I have my doubts this whistleblower has a full understanding of the situation.

It is tragicomical to watch the outrage here that comes from a mere allegation as people mourn as if guilt is certain. Calling children saying the jig is up and they must stop paying tithing? I would laugh if my dad called me with that counsel. Shame at having paid tithing in the past? Claims this would never have happened if the church was still providing an annual financial report?

[CA Steve]

If there is actually a $100 billion in a LDS rainy day account can we all agree we currently are not in a rainy day then?

Thing must be going pretty well throughout the LDS world.

 

[provoman]

11 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If it were grain or canned goods then you might have a point. Once the world collapses, this portfolio will be worth zero. 

If Dave Ramsey were advising World Wide organizations, then his rainy-day 6 month standard might apply.

The point an objective standard by which to condemn the fund has not been presented.

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, rchorse said:

I have a testimony of tithing independent of how the church uses the funds. I would continue to pay, even if the money were to be spent on lavish homes, extravagant vacations, and expensive cars for church leadership.

Having said that, though, I also have a testimony that leaders are in every way accountable to the Lord and legally accountable for how the funds are managed, and I believe no one is more conscious of and concerned about that accountability than the church leaders. When the full story is known, my guess is that no laws were broken, no one was materially misled, and this whistleblower is missing or misunderstanding some key facts.

But if there was any breaking of heavenly or earthly laws, those involved should be punished according to the laws of the land and the church, and I will continue to pay my tithing as always.

This is my view as well.  The quote in the article about how the church shouldn't require taxes if it has money seems like such a straw man to me, since where does it say that God only ever requires tithing when He needs the money?

It would not surprise me to learn though (I'm not saying that I think this is what happened, only that if it did happen it wouldn't surprise me) that there were certain leaders who believed that paying taxes wasn't moral (I hear that all the time from people-TAXES ARE THEFT! BLAH BLAH BLAH) so didn't feel it was wrong to play sketchy with the books to lower the taxes owed, but if that turned out to be the case, then the church would need to be brought into compliance and do what was necessary to make things right.

[smac97]

Just now, Navidad said:

Quote

CFR, please.  Which "church publications"?

Hi Smac: I see this discussed in a rather regular fashion in LDS Living - an email newsletter I receive. Is it not an official publication of the  Church? 

Apparently it is owned by Deseret Book, which is owned by the Church.

Could you provide some links to instances of writers at LDS Living suggesting that we should "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"?

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Hi Smac: I see this discussed in a rather regular fashion in LDS Living - an email newsletter I receive. Is it not an official publication of the  Church? 

No. It is semi-affiliated in that the church owns it (LDS Living is owned by Deseret Books I believe) but it is not an official publication. While they would doubtlessly get the rug pulled out from under them if they were bashing the Church the Church is also not managing them that minutely. From their “About Us” page:

“LDS Living Magazine is an independent work, and is not an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The views expressed in the magazine are the responsibility of the various authors and do not necessarily represent the positions of the Church. Contributors include Church members and members of other faiths.”

[CV75]

11 hours ago, Michael Sudworth said:

I am absolutely devastated at this level of deception that has been carried on for so many years.

I phoned all of my adult children tonight, instructing them not to pay any further tithing until President Nelson makes a comment why the Church has amassed 100 Billion dollars by misappropriating sacred tithing funds.

What did they say?

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Of course there was an understanding that it would be used for charitable purposes in the way the church directed. There were many times I could not give to very worthwhile causes but assured myself that my tithe was being used charitably by the church. I think that is a reasonable expectation.

Is this the understanding?  Can you show the reference for that?  It's a sincere question, I'm not trying to be snarky.  It's just that it has never been my understanding of what tithing is for (that it's for charity) so I'm wondering if I missed something somewhere.

[The Nehor]

1 hour 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. 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? 

I really doubt you heard that.

I am also interested to hear your argument on how using incognito mode or clearing your browser’s cookies and history constitute fraud.