whistleblower on Church finances

[The Nehor]

22 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

"Latter-day Saint officials kept the size of the church’s $100 billion investment reserves secret for fear that public knowledge of the fund’s wealth might discourage members from paying tithing, according to the top executive who oversees the account."

Really?  If they were fearful of that, there is an easy way to solve it.  Spend more of it.  The church could pay for all Missionary expenses.  For me, I don't care if the church has a 100 billion dollar "war" chest.  What does bother me a little is that they still ask families to put up some of the cost for missions. If the church can financially handle the cost, they should do so and help some LDS families out that are struggling.

So if God told the prophet to save this money an easy solution is to just disobey for PR reasons. In our vernacular we call that “temptation” and giving in is generally bad.

[Hamba Tuhan]

46 minutes ago, provoman said:

Could you explain the broken trust?

Exactly. I trust Church leaders to be wise steward's of the Lord's storehouse. They've fulfilled that trust perfectly, in my opinion.

42 minutes ago, provoman said:

I have only discussed the fund online. I have not heard it discussed at Church.

I heard a few comments when the story first broke. They were characterised mainly by admiration. None was negative or critical.

Edited February 10, 2020 by Hamba Tuhan

[sunstoned]

4 hours ago, provoman said:

Could you explain the broken trust?

We (members) were told that no tithing funds were used to construct the high end shopping mall in SLC.  Now we find out that isn't true.  

[sunstoned]

13 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Has the church provided an alternative that fits in a headline?

From my understanding a message was sent out to the press asking that they not use the word "mormon", but rather the full name of the church.  The headline in the article used "mormon church".

[Tacenda]

21 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

We (members) were told that no tithing funds were used to construct the high end shopping mall in SLC.  Now we find out that isn't true.  

Think of the money that would have gone to the general public had that fund not been tax exempt.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/lds-charities-releases-2018-annual-report

And  2.2 billion over a span of 35 years, doesn't seem like that much now. 

Since 1985, LDS Charities has provided over $2.2 billion in assistance, including cash, commodities and in-kind donations in 197 countries and territories.

If the church would contribute much more for charity work going forward, that would be a very positive outcome. 

 

Edited February 10, 2020 by Tacenda

[Scott Lloyd]

On 12/16/2019 at 10:34 PM, 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.

I hope your adult children are independent-minded enough to tell you to mind your own business. 

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, sunstoned said:

We (members) were told that no tithing funds were used to construct the high end shopping mall in SLC.  Now we find out that isn't true.  

I think I missed that part.  Where did it say that wasn't true?

[Tacenda]

This youtube is being passed around right now. I'm on the fence, good or bad?

 

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This youtube is being passed around right now. I'm on the fence, good or bad?

I don't understand.  What is the potential "bad" indicated in this clip?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand.  What is the potential "bad" indicated in this clip?

Thanks,

-Smac

The response I read was this in quotes: 

"According to the article in the SLTrib (link in comments): "Latter-day Saint officials acknowledged that it used Ensign funds to underwrite construction of City Creek Center mall in downtown Salt Lake City and rescue Beneficial Life, a church-owned insurance company, but said there was nothing illegal in that."

I need legal advice to see if they have a point, so you're awesome for replying Smac.

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

The response I read was this in quotes: 

"According to the article in the SLTrib (link in comments): "Latter-day Saint officials acknowledged that it used Ensign funds to underwrite construction of City Creek Center mall in downtown Salt Lake City and rescue Beneficial Life, a church-owned insurance company, but said there was nothing illegal in that."

I need legal advice to see if they have a point, so you're awesome for replying Smac.

From FAIR (emphasis added):

Quote

The Church has repeatedly stated that no tithing money is being used for construction of City Creek Center, including in the official Church magazine, the Ensign:

The Church first announced three years ago it was planning to redevelop the downtown area to energize the economy of the city that houses its headquarters and to bolster the area near Temple Square. No tithing funds will be used in the redevelopment.
"Church Releases Plans for Downtown Salt Lake", Ensign, Dec. 2006, 76–80.

The entire project is being financed through the church's commercial real estate arm, Property Reserve, Inc. These funds come through for-profit, tax-paying businesses owned by the Church.

This Deseret News article has more information on the construction and financing:

Money for the project is not coming from LDS Church members' tithing donations. City Creek Center is being developed by Property Reserve Inc., the church's real-estate development arm, and its money comes from other real-estate ventures.
- Doug Smeath, "Downtown renovation project", Deseret News March 27, 2007.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

From FAIR (emphasis added):

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks for the response! The for profit businesses paying for the mall is great. What I don't think is great is that the money came from a fund that is tax exempt. Where the money should be taxed as to benefit those that are affected for the good from the money..whether it be for our infrastructure, education, Medicaid/Medicare, environment, you name it.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

From FAIR (emphasis added):

Thanks,

-Smac

The issue I take with this is that as more information comes to light, it calls into question how the church deems money to no longer be "tithes".

Is everything in the EPA considered tithes?  Or did it become something else when turned over to that investment fund?

Is the interest gained from tithes still tithes?

Is the profit gained from the investment of tithes still tithes?

Is the growth of a business that used the EPA fund as collateral, considered tithes?

 

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Quote

Money for the project is not coming from LDS Church members' tithing donations. City Creek Center is being developed by Property Reserve Inc., the church's real-estate development arm, and its money comes from other real-estate ventures.

Thanks for the response! The for profit businesses paying for the mall is great.

I agree.  It seems to have worked out well.

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

What I don't think is great is that the money came from a fund that is tax exempt.

I'm not sure what you are saying here.  I assume you are referencing this bit: "The Nielsens alleged that Ensign Peak Advisors improperly sent $1.4 billion from 2010 to 2014 to the church entity funding City Creek, Property Reserve Inc. The church did invest in the housing and parking elements of City Creek. Taubman Centers, Inc., a nationally recognized shopping center developer, owns and operates the shopping center."

City Creek was announced in October 2006, and was opened in March 2012.  So there is an overlap in time, but no specific Are you saying that the alleged $1.4 billion from Ensign Peak was used in the construction of City Creek?  If so, what evidence do you have of that?

Forgive my ignorance.  This story has a lot of particulars and its hard to keep an eye on all of them.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The issue I take with this is that as more information comes to light, it calls into question how the church deems money to no longer be "tithes".

Is everything in the EPA considered tithes?  Or did it become something else when turned over to that investment fund?

If "tithes" are the "principal" that are used to fund EPA, and if EPA thereafter grows those funds through interest, investments, etc., are those funds (interest, investments, etc.) properly characterized as "tithes"?

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Is the interest gained from tithes still tithes?

Since the interest was not tithed, I would venture to say "no."

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Is the profit gained from the investment of tithes still tithes?

Since such profits were not tithed, I would again venture to say "no."

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Is the growth of a business that used the EPA fund as collateral, considered tithes?

I'd say no.

The parable of the talents comes to mind.  The master gave three servants five talents, two talents, and one talent repsectively.  Two of the servants thereafter multiplied the talents, such that they presented the master with, respectively, ten talents and four talents, respectively. 

The master ended up with fifteen talents, having given his servants eight to begin with.  

How do we characterize the seven additional talents?  Are they the Lord's?  Or, in the alternative, are they . . . well, there is no alternative, is there?  The seven additional talents are the Lord's regardless of how they are characterized.

As I understand it, the narrative being told here is that

1. The members of the Church pay about $7 billion each year in tithes.

2. The Church's operating expenditures amount to around $6 billion each year.

3. The excess tithes, around $1 billion per year, are sent to Ensign Peak Advisors for investment purposes and growth.

4. EPA has apparently done a very good job with this, having grown the invested proceeds (tithes) by a substantial amount.  

5. The Church announced in 2006 that "Money for the project is not coming from LDS Church members' tithing donations. City Creek Center is being developed by Property Reserve Inc., the church's real-estate development arm, and its money comes from other real-estate ventures."

6. The 2006-2011 construction of City Creek (in which the Church's for-profit real estate interest, Property Reserve, invested) overlaps a bit with the allegations in the Nielsens' claims that Ensign Peak sent $1.4 billion to Property Reserve between 2010 and 2014.  The insinuation is that these payments demonstrate that the Church's statement above was factually false, or else substantially misleading.

Is this a correct summary of the circumstances pertaining to your concern?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rain]

14 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Think of the money that would have gone to the general public had that fund not been tax exempt.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/lds-charities-releases-2018-annual-report

And  2.2 billion over a span of 35 years, doesn't seem like that much now. 

Since 1985, LDS Charities has provided over $2.2 billion in assistance, including cash, commodities and in-kind donations in 197 countries and territories.

If the church would contribute much more for charity work going forward, that would be a very positive outcome. 

 

Think of the money that is wasted when used by the government (my dad worked as an auditor for the government and saw some real waste). Think of the money the government uses for guns.  Think of the money that the government uses to support artwork that you may not agree with.

If you wish to know where the money goes then I completely understand, but it just doesn't make sense to compare every expenditure to what you think they are using/not using on charity. 

It's like knowing I put $10 in savings and knowing I gave $10 to the Red Cross, and pointing out I could have given that savings to charity without any other knowledge of my finances or goals.

[toon]

14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I hope your adult children are independent-minded enough to tell you to mind your own business. 

I thought his phrasing about "instructing" his adult children to do something was odd. At the same time, my father-in-law sends out regular messages advising and reminding ("instructing" would also work) his adult children on various matters such as temple attendance, food storage, family prayer, and sometimes politics. Even though I don't agree with him on many of these messages, I've always appreciated them, as they show his concern for his kids. Should I instead tell him to mind his own business?

Edited February 10, 2020 by toon

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

 

Is the interest gained from tithes still tithes?

Is the profit gained from the investment of tithes still tithes?

Is the growth of a business that used the EPA fund as collateral, considered tithes?

 

I would say not, just as most I know pay tithing on investment income.  They don't assume the tithing they have paid on the principal (is that the right term?) covers their income that is the interest from that principal.

The principal from tithing are tithes, everything else is income imo.

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, toon said:

I agree. I thought is phrasing about "instructing" his adult children to do something was odd. At the same time, my father-in-law sends out regular messages advising and reminding ("instructing" would also work) his adult children on various matters such as temple attendance, food storage, family prayer, and sometimes politics. Even though I don't agree with him on many of these messages, I've always appreciated them, as they show his concern for his kids. Should I instead tell him to mind his own business?

I think there is a balance needed.  My dad offered to finance any renovation material costs after seeing what I had managed so far on our previous home (for example, I tore up the carpet where we had a nice wood floor underneath and then pieced it together to use in the basement and my husband put the siding on our house with the help of a few friends).  It was very generous of him because there was a huge amount of work still needed, but after a few months I said thanks, but no thanks because the way he had structured it had put us back into a parent-child relationship of inequality where in my own home I felt like I was having to justify all my choices.

I think one can share ideas and concerns with one's adult children as if they are friends or partners, but if one does it as having authority over them, it can damage the relationship as preventing them from acting as mature adults able to make their own decisions for themselves.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

If "tithes" are the "principal" that are used to fund EPA, and if EPA thereafter grows those funds through interest, investments, etc., are those funds (interest, investments, etc.) properly characterized as "tithes"?

I would say yes.  But I'm wondering how the church defines it.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Since the interest was not tithed, I would venture to say "no."

So the church can take tithing money, loan it out, and then consider the interest as "not tithes" to be used for for profit ventures, like City Creek.  Is that how we think the church sees it?

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Since such profits were not tithed, I would again venture to say "no."

So the church can take tithing funds received, invest them in anything, and all profits are not considered tithes as long as they don't touch the principal?

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I'd say no.

Under your description, tithing becomes a massive venture capital and investment fund that they can use for any purpose as long as they maintain the principal balance.

If that is the way that the church defines "tithes" than I assume the statement that they did not use tithes for City Creek is correct.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The parable of the talents comes to mind.  The master gave three servants five talents, two talents, and one talent repsectively.  Two of the servants thereafter multiplied the talents, such that they presented the master with, respectively, ten talents and four talents, respectively. 

The master ended up with fifteen talents, having given his servants eight to begin with.  

How do we characterize the seven additional talents?  Are they the Lord's?  Or, in the alternative, are they . . . well, there is no alternative, is there?  The seven additional talents are the Lord's regardless of how they are characterized.

As I understand it, the narrative being told here is that

1. The members of the Church pay about $7 billion each year in tithes.

2. The Church's operating expenditures amount to around $6 billion each year.

3. The excess tithes, around $1 billion per year, are sent to Ensign Peak Advisors for investment purposes and growth.

4. EPA has apparently done a very good job with this, having grown the invested proceeds (tithes) by a substantial amount.  

5. The Church announced in 2006 that "Money for the project is not coming from LDS Church members' tithing donations. City Creek Center is being developed by Property Reserve Inc., the church's real-estate development arm, and its money comes from other real-estate ventures."

6. The 2006-2011 construction of City Creek (in which the Church's for-profit real estate interest, Property Reserve, invested) overlaps a bit with the allegations in the Nielsens' claims that Ensign Peak sent $1.4 billion to Property Reserve between 2010 and 2014.  The insinuation is that these payments demonstrate that the Church's statement above was factually false, or else substantially misleading.

Is this a correct summary of the circumstances pertaining to your concern?

Thanks,

-Smac

Whether the Church's statement is factually false or misleading all depends on how one defines "tithes".  That was the point I was attempting to illustrate.

For me, interest and profit gained from the use of tithes is still tithing money.  If I were to put my tithing money into a Charles Schwab account and invest it, any profit I made, I would consider to still be tithing.

[rockpond]

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

I would say not, just as most I know pay tithing on investment income.  They don't assume the tithing they have paid on the principal (is that the right term?) covers their income that is the interest from that principal.

The principal from tithing are tithes, everything else is income imo.

I tried to clarify in my above response to Smac.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I would say yes.  But I'm wondering how the church defines it.

That's a fair inquiry.

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So the church can take tithing money, loan it out, and then consider the interest as "not tithes" to be used for for profit ventures, like City Creek. 

I'm not sure that's what happened here.

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Is that how we think the church sees it?

I'm not sure.

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So the church can take tithing funds received, invest them in anything, and all profits are not considered tithes as long as they don't touch the principal?

I would think so.  Tithes are donations from the members.  Profits derived from soundly investing those donations are not donations from the members.

Again, consider the Parable of the Talents.  Did the master give his servants eight talents, or fifteen?

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Under your description, tithing becomes a massive venture capital and investment fund that they can use for any purpose as long as they maintain the principal balance.

Some tithing is set aside and used for investment purposes, yes.  The bulk of it, however, is expended on the needs of the Church.

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

If that is the way that the church defines "tithes" than I assume the statement that they did not use tithes for City Creek is correct.

Okay.

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Whether the Church's statement is factually false or misleading all depends on how one defines "tithes".  That was the point I was attempting to illustrate.

Same here.  

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

For me, interest and profit gained from the use of tithes is still tithing money. 

How do you figure that?

Once I tithe, the money is no longer mine.  It belongs to the Lord, and is administered by His servants.  I have no claim to it.  I have no control over it.

I just finished my 2019 taxes last Friday.  Are you suggesting that I should be able to claim not only the tithes I donated to the Church, but also any "interest and profit gained from the use of tithes"?  I assume not.  So if I can't make that claim in a legal/taxation sense, in what sense could I make such a claim?

For me, I am thrilled that the Church has demonstrated itself to be a wise steward of sacred funds.  To the extent that the Church should be spending more of its accumulated wealth on humanitarian causes, I think there is a reasonable and good faith argument for that.  But I also think there's a reasonable and good faith argument for the Church's current position.  In the end, it seems like a judgment call, and one that I am not well situated to make.

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

If I were to put my tithing money into a Charles Schwab account and invest it, any profit I made, I would consider to still be tithing.

If you put your mony into an investment account, then both the principal and accrued interest would be yours.

But since you've retained the money rather than donated it to the Church, I don't think you can call it "tithing."

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

That's a fair inquiry.

I'm not sure that's what happened here.

I'm not sure.

I would think so.  Tithes are donations from the members.  Profits derived from soundly investing those donations are not donations from the members.

Again, consider the Parable of the Talents.  Did the master give his servants eight talents, or fifteen?

Some tithing is set aside and used for investment purposes, yes.  The bulk of it, however, is expended on the needs of the Church.

Okay.

Same here.  

How do you figure that?

Once I tithe, the money is no longer mine.  It belongs to the Lord, and is administered by His servants.  I have no claim to it.  I have no control over it.

I just finished my 2019 taxes last Friday.  Are you suggesting that I should be able to claim not only the tithes I donated to the Church, but also any "interest and profit gained from the use of tithes"?  I assume not.  So if I can't make that claim in a legal/taxation sense, in what sense could I make such a claim?

For me, I am thrilled that the Church has demonstrated itself to be a wise steward of sacred funds.  To the extent that the Church should be spending more of its accumulated wealth on humanitarian causes, I think there is a reasonable and good faith argument for that.  But I also think there's a reasonable and good faith argument for the Church's current position.  In the end, it seems like a judgment call, and one that I am not well situated to make.

If you put your mony into an investment account, then both the principal and accrued interest would be yours.

But since you've retained the money rather than donated it to the Church, I don't think you can call it "tithing."

Thanks,

-Smac

Let me ask it this way:

In the parable of the talents, the servant who received five talents used those talents to gain another five.  To whom did the second five talents belong?  The servant or the master?

[Hamba Tuhan]

One of my former young men saved up just enough money to serve his mission. He didn't trust his parents at the time, so he left all the money with me to make his monthly mission payments. (I resisted this, but he just couldn't cope with setting things up himself.) I divided the funds in fourths. The first I kept in a savings account, the second I invested in a six-month term deposit, the third I invested in a 12-month term deposit, and the fourth I invested in an 18-month term deposit.

As a result, when he returned from his mission, he had a decent amount of money he could use to live on for several months until he resumed working.

Question for @rockpond: from your perspective, was he using 'mission funds' when he spent that money after he returned home?

Edited February 10, 2020 by Hamba Tuhan

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Let me ask it this way:

In the parable of the talents, the servant who received five talents used those talents to gain another five.  To whom did the second five talents belong?  The servant or the master?

The master.