whistleblower on Church finances

[Hamba Tuhan]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The master.

That's not exactly how the parable teaches it. The master said he had come to 'receive [his] own with usury', so yes, it was technically his. But then he left the 10 talents with the first servant, and even gave him the one that the third servant had hidden away. The implication is that the second servant likewise kept all four. ' For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath'.

Edited February 10, 2020 by Hamba Tuhan

[rockpond]

32 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

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?

No.  

[rockpond]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The master.

So, relating that parable to this issue at hand:

The master is the Lord.  He has given the Brethren the five talents (tithes from members).  As I see it, they are (allegedly*) taking the interest gained from those talents and claiming that it no longer belongs to the Lord.

*If it's true that money invested in City Creek was profit earned from the investment of tithes which they are now saying is not considered tithes.

 

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

That's not exactly how the parable teaches it. The master said he had come to 'receive [his] own with usury', so yes, it was technically his. But then he left the 10 talents with the first servant, and even gave him the one that the third servant had hidden away. The implication is that the second servant likewise kept all four. ' For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath'.

Yes, it all belonged to the Master and then he gave it to the Servants.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

So, relating that parable to this issue at hand:

The master is the Lord.  He has given the Brethren the five talents (tithes from members).  As I see it, they are (allegedly*) taking the interest gained from those talents and claiming that it no longer belongs to the Lord.

How so?

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

*If it's true that money invested in City Creek was profit earned from the investment of tithes which they are now saying is not considered tithes.

 

 

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

How so?

 

I am equating "tithes" and "the Lord's money" or consecrated funds.

Perhaps that is unfair.  But this is why I'm trying to understand how Church leadership sees it.  I disagree with the idea that if the church takes the Lord's money and invests it that the profit derived is somehow freed from the constraints of how tithes are to be used.

[Hamba Tuhan]

21 minutes ago, rockpond said:

No.  

Thanks. That's pretty much how I would view any interest earnt from investing tithing funds. As you noted above, all funds in the Church are the Lord's money -- including, for example, profits from commercial real estate investments -- but they're clearly not all tithing. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, toon said:

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?

He said he phoned his “adult children” “instructing” (not advising or admonishing or teaching or suggesting) that they perform a specific behavior, i.e. refuse to pay their tithing until his own specific conditions are met. What does he mean by “adult children”? How old do they have to be before he recognizes their behavioral autonomy and ceases to expect them to accede unquestioningly to his dirctives? 18? 25? 30? 50?

Was there any indication that he invited any of them to engage in a give-and-take discussion such as we are having on this thread or to give any feedback whatsoever? Not that I could see. 
 

Edited to add: I foresee it’s going to come to this, so I’ll save time by pasting in this online definition:

 

 

 

in·struct

/inˈstrəkt/

Learn to pronounce

verb

1. 1. 

   direct or command someone to do something, especially as an official order.

   "she instructed him to wait"

   
   2. 

   teach someone a subject or skill. 
    

   Of the two definitions, the first seems suited to the context; the second, not so much. 
    

   It takes no special skill or  education to refuse to pay one’s tithing. It doesn’t even take any action. One just ceases to do something.    If he meant he suggested, or even that he urged his children to cease their tithe paying, he could have expressed it in those terms.

    

    

 

Edited February 11, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[pogi]

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Was their any indication...

The man is human!

[rockpond]

27 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Thanks. That's pretty much how I would view any interest earnt from investing tithing funds. As you noted above, all funds in the Church are the Lord's money -- including, for example, profits from commercial real estate investments -- but they're clearly not all tithing. 

I suppose that’s how the Brethren may see it as well.

I don’t see it that way.  For me, interest or profit gained from investing tithes is still tithes, it is still consecrated.

So, while factually correct, I find the statements below to be misleading.

“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 notcoming 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", DeseretNews March 27, 2007.

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

The man is human!

I do this so often even when I know the rules, lol!

[pogi]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I do this so often even when I know the rules, lol!

Me too.  I only point it out because it's, well, Scott.

Edited February 10, 2020 by pogi

[Hamba Tuhan]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don’t see it that way.  For me, interest or profit gained from investing tithes is still tithes, it is still consecrated.

But you said that interest gained from investing mission funds isn't still mission funds. Why the discrepancy?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 hours 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"?

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

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

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

Let’s say one year I make 100,000 dollars and calculate my tithing due as 10,000. Instead immediately donating the money to the church (they have plenty and won’t miss mine for a couple years) I invest it. After a few years the $10,000 is now $20,000. How much do I owe in tithing? 

[rockpond]

16 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

But you said that interest gained from investing mission funds isn't still mission funds. Why the discrepancy?

I see a significant and practical difference between the funds someone saves to use for their mission and tithes that have been consecrated to the Lord.

While your friend likely sees those mission funds as consecrated (and I would agree) they aren't the same as tithes that have been paid to the Lord.  Your friend saved up the money for his mission and he paid for his mission at the appointed time.

 

Note:  I am not (and have not) argued against a wise investing and savings plan by the church done in accordance with the Lord's will.  I'm just saying that I see it all as tithes because it was turned over to the Lord as tithes not as a pool of capital intended to make a profit that would not longer be considered as tithes.

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Let’s say one year I make 100,000 dollars and calculate my tithing due as 10,000. Instead immediately donating the money to the church (they have plenty and won’t miss mine for a couple years) I invest it. After a few years the $10,000 is now $20,000. How much do I owe in tithing? 

This is, by design, a situation that requires an individual answer. But if I were the person in question, I would consider that I still owe the original $10,000 plus ten per cent of my increase. Ten per cent of the extra $10,000 is $1,000, so I owe $11,000 in tithing.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

This is, by design, a situation that requires an individual answer. But if I were the person in question, I would consider that I still owe the original $10,000 plus ten per cent of my increase. Ten per cent of the extra $10,000 is $1,000, so I owe $11,000 in tithing.

So perhaps an option for some? Simply invest your tithing money in a separate account where you never touch the principal. Maybe pay your tithing as a lump sum at retirement?

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm just saying that I see it all as tithes because it was turned over to the Lord as tithes not as a pool of capital intended to make a profit that would not longer be considered as tithes.

Thanks. And you're certainly welcome to see things that way. That's how perspective works! But I don't see it that way, and I suspect some Church members we might ask would agree with me whilst some might agree with you. I think we have evidence that Church leaders are closer to my position. Because I trust them the way that I do, I suspect that the Lord has guided them in their perspective and actions. I can understand why others would reach different conclusions.

An interesting question is what legal frameworks might apply if the Church weren't a church. I can only speak from my perspective (working as a political adviser in a non-American nation), but I'm confident that the brethren are in harmony with our legal framework here. If I transfer money from one fund to another and then transfer it back, I've fulfilled my legal requirements. And if I have mechanisms in place to distinguish separate finance streams in a commingled fund, I've also fulfilled my legal requirements.

[Analytics]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I agree.  It seems to have worked out well.

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

Legally, I think the issue is that the church claims Ensign Peak Advisors is a 501c3 public charity. According to the tax code and its own corporate charter, it may only use its funds for specific non-profit work.

We know EPA helped fund City Creek because Nielsen said so. He has proven to be reliable.

If you look at what EPA actually does and how it does it, it seems to actually be a 501c3 private foundation. If the IRS ends up agreeing with this assertion, then EPA owes some taxes--private foundations are required to actually use some of their assets for charitable purposes.

My prediction is that the IRS will end up deciding that bailing out the Church's for-profit businesses is actually bailing out the Church itself, and hence it is in fact acting as a public charity.

That would be a disappointing. If I formed my own church, donated 10% of my income to that church, deducted those donations from my income, and then saved a ton of those donations in a "public charity" that never did any actual charitable work, never paid taxes, but rather just accumulated the money with compound investment income until Jesus comes back, I would fully expect to get severely penalized with taxes and penalties.

In principle, tax deductible organizations should engage in tax deductions activities. EPA doesn't seem to be doing that.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So perhaps an option for some? Simply invest your tithing money in a separate account where you never touch the principal. Maybe pay your tithing as a lump sum at retirement?

On the surface, it would seem, under the logic being put forth by Smac and Hamba, that this is appropriate.

But, I suspect their response is that regular members don't get to make such a decision.  Church leaders do because they have stewardship.

However, if the Lord is okay with the church setting aside $100B, why would He not be okay with members doing the same?  It's still there, ready for a "rainy day" or the second coming.

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So perhaps an option for some? Simply invest your tithing money in a separate account where you never touch the principal. Maybe pay your tithing as a lump sum at retirement?

I know from having served in our bishopric that we have members who do just that on an annual basis. It's possible some use a longer timeframe. Doesn't fuss me. I've made a small number of 'unconventional' decisions regarding my own tithing under clear and unmistakable inspiration. I trust others to discuss these matters with God as well.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Thanks. And you're certainly welcome to see things that way. That's how perspective works! But I don't see it that way, and I suspect some Church members we might ask would agree with me whilst some might agree with you. I think we have evidence that Church leaders are closer to my position. Because I trust them the way that I do, I suspect that the Lord has guided them in their perspective and actions. I can understand why others would reach different conclusions.

An interesting question is what legal frameworks might apply if the Church weren't a church. I can only speak from my perspective (working as a political adviser in a non-American nation), but I'm confident that the brethren are in harmony with our legal framework here. If I transfer money from one fund to another and then transfer it back, I've fulfilled my legal requirements. And if I have mechanisms in place to distinguish separate finance streams in a commingled fund, I've also fulfilled my legal requirements.

I don't think the church has violated any legal requirements.  I don't think the Brethen would break laws with how they are handling church finances.  And I don't see the Nielsen "whistleblower" complaint getting any traction.

And if the Church weren't a church they would have even more freedom in how they use funds.  But they'd also have more taxes.

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Analytics said:

In principle, tax deductible organizations should engage in tax deductions activities. EPA doesn't seem to be doing that.

I agree with this statement but it would appear that US tax code is nebulous enough to allow for what the EPA is doing.

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I know from having served in our bishopric that we have members who do just that on an annual basis. It's possible some use a longer timeframe. Doesn't fuss me. I've made a small number of 'unconventional' decisions regarding my own tithing under clear and unmistakable inspiration. I trust others to discuss these matters with God as well.

My dad paid every other year to maximize tax deductions.

I think many leaders would be okay with something that conveyed a regular turning over to the Lord type of tithing.  Investing and holding financial control over your tithing until you die is not giving to the Lord fully, imo, because you can always take it back if you change your mind.

But Church funds that belong to the Church are the Lord's in the first and final place, whether they sit in a savings account, get put into temples or chapels, or are partial ownership of a business, imo.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I agree with this statement but it would appear that US tax code is nebulous enough to allow for what the EPA is doing.

This [tax deductible organizations should be doing tax deductible activity and EPA is not] would depend on if you see EPA as a separate, independent organization or a part of the Church's organization.  If the latter, I would say the organization is doing tax deductible activities.  It is in my view like one of those kids' piggy banks*** that are divided into three sections of savings or spending, tithing, and mission.  If you treated the savings part of it as independent of the rest and therefore condemn the kid for not paying tithing or preparing for a mission, no one would think that was a reasonable complaint.

***https://deseretbook.com/p/plastic-savings-bank-cumorah-classics-61863?ref=Grid | Search-6&variant_id=39973-blue

Edited February 11, 2020 by Calm