whistleblower on Church finances

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

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

Good to see that he too is human!

[CV75]

27 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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.

Of course they get to make this decision,given the guidance that "The simplest statement we know of is the statement of the Lord himself, namely, that the members of the Church should pay ‘one-tenth of all their interest annually,’ which is understood to mean income. No one is justified in making any other statement than this” (First Presidency letter, Mar. 19, 1970; see also Doctrine and Covenants 119:4)." and the fact that, as "a natural and integrated aspect of their religious belief and practice," it "is paid on the honor system. No one asks to see income statements or pay slips."

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/tithing

[toon]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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 their 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.

    

    

 

Thus my comment about the phrasing being odd.  I recognized the exact same thing you did, but I also suspected that he wasn't directing or commanding his adult children in any way. Rather, I suspected it was more likely in the same light as when my father-in-law sends out a message telling his kids that they need to do x, y, and z to remain worthy and to go to the temple.

I also remember a time years ago when I was going through some financial difficulties, and my dad helped me out. After, it came up that I was paying tithing, and he told me I shouldn't. (My dad's not Mormon.) While he didn't phrase it as just advice or a recommendation, I recognized that was what it was, because ... people skills.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

The man is human!

Thank you, Captain Obvious. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, toon said:

Thus my comment about the phrasing being odd.  I recognized the exact same thing you did, but I also suspected that he wasn't directing or commanding his adult children in any way. Rather, I suspected it was more likely in the same light as when my father-in-law sends out a message telling his kids that they need to do x, y, and z to remain worthy and to go to the temple.

I also remember a time years ago when I was going through some financial difficulties, and my dad helped me out. After, it came up that I was paying tithing, and he told me I shouldn't. (My dad's not Mormon.) While he didn't phrase it as just advice or a recommendation, I recognized that was what it was, because ... people skills.

 

If, as I suspect, your dad’s behavior was motivated purely by his concern for your well-being, I find his advice/recommendation perfectly understandable, even though I disagree with it. 
 

If, on the other hand, I had reason to believe there was an element of anger at the Church of Jesus Christ in his behavior, I would find it less tolerable and understandable. 
 

Furthermore, it appears he told you that you shouldn’t pay tithing, not that he “instructed” you not to. So I see a further distinction there. 
 

Finally, your dad not being a member of the Church, it is highly unlikely he would have been taught the principle and covenantal nature of tithing in the past and thus would not have had that doctrinal background to inform his thinking. Yet another distinction. 

Edited February 11, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

I see EPA as part of the larger Church organization but I still feel that the investment portfolio is excessive.  I would revise that conclusion in light of information showing that the total church overhead is in excess of $30B.

16 hours ago, Calm said:

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

Love this.  I had no idea they still sold them.  Looks identical to when I was a kid.

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I see EPA as part of the larger Church organization but I still feel that the investment portfolio is excessive

But this is a different argument imo than the claim EPA isn't doing any tax deductible activities and therefore shouldn't be classified as tax deductible (I am assuming this is the implication of the perspective tax deductible organizations should do such).

Even if the portfolio was diminished, chances are the EPA would simply be transferring funds to other Church entities and not engaging in the activities itself.

Edited February 11, 2020 by Calm

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

But this is a different argument imo than the claim EPA isn't doing any tax deductible activities and therefore shouldn't be classified as tax deductible (I am assuming this the implication of the perspective tax deductible organizations should do such).

Even if the portfolio was diminished, chances are the EPA would simply be transferring funds to other Church entities and not engaging in the activities itself.

Agreed.

I don't see much merit in Nielsen's legal argument.  It's just my opinion that there ought to be some sort of limitations on how much wealth a tax-exempt entity can build up in investment accounts.  Admittedly, not easy to define.  But if the Church's annual overhead expenses are $6B, than I believe $100B or $124B is excessive.

Edited February 11, 2020 by rockpond

[SeekingUnderstanding]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

Very easy to set up an irrevocable trust for this purpose if people see no other problems to it. 

Quote

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.

I agree. I disagree with the semantic game the church plays though. Not spending money now carries an opportunity cost. A dollar spent on education now will yield future returns. A dollar spent now on a temple will yield major current blessings (from a believers perspective) to those who worship there. So saving money instead of using it has a cost to those who might benefit now. Luckily saving money also has a benefit though in the form of interest. It seems to me though that calling the interest from tithing money as something other than tithing is very disingenuous. 

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I disagree with the semantic game the church plays though. Not spending money now carries an opportunity cost. A dollar spent on education now will yield future returns.

A billion dollars a year would be enough to run another BYU campus.

2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Luckily saving money also has a benefit though in the form of interest. It seems to me though that calling the interest from tithing money as something other than tithing is very disingenuous. 

Amen.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Very easy to set up an irrevocable trust for this purpose if people see no other problems to it. 

What would be the benefit of doing it this way vs. giving the money to the Church on an annual basis?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

What would be the benefit of doing it this way vs. giving the money to the Church on an annual basis?

If interest off tithing money isn’t tithing, then you could make a ton of money off your tithing money. Enough to fund a good retirement probably. Let’s say I owed 10,000 per year in tithing for 30 years. Instead of paying annually, I set up an irrevocable trust where the principal would be paid to the church after 30 years and I’d keep the interest (less 10 percent). At an 8 percent rate of return at the end, I’d owe $383k in tithing. Then I’d have $750k for myself. That $750K certainly wouldn’t be considered tithing by the church’s definition right?

Edited February 11, 2020 by SeekingUnderstanding

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If interest off tithing money isn’t tithing, then you could make a ton of money off your tithing money. Enough to fund a good retirement probably. Let’s say I owed 10,000 per year in tithing for 30 years. Instead of paying annually, I set up an irrevocable trust where the principal would be paid to the church after 30 years and I’d keep the interest (less 10 percent). At an 8 percent rate of return at the end, I’d owe $383k in tithing. Then I’d have $750k for myself. That $750K certainly wouldn’t be considered tithing by the church’s definition right?

Good illustration.

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If interest off tithing money isn’t tithing, then you could make a ton of money off your tithing money. Enough to fund a good retirement probably. Let’s say I owed 10,000 per year in tithing for 30 years. Instead of paying annually, I set up an irrevocable trust where the principal would be paid to the church after 30 years and I’d keep the interest (less 10 percent). At an 8 percent rate of return at the end, I’d owe $383k in tithing. Then I’d have $750k for myself. That $750K certainly wouldn’t be considered tithing by the church’s definition right?

I don't think it'd be considered tithing by anyone's definition.  

What happens if the person dies before the 30 years is up?  I'm not sure how irrevocable trusts work.  

I think someone could definitely choose to do tithing that way.  I personally wouldn't because I want the blessings from paying tithing now and not in 30 years, and I'd be worried about how I would pay all the tithing I owed if some financial disaster made the trust worth less than what I owed, but some people might not see the same downfalls that I do.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't think it'd be considered tithing by anyone's definition.  

What happens if the person dies before the 30 years is up?  I'm not sure how irrevocable trusts work.  

Easy to set up a payment on death of all the principal.

Quote

I think someone could definitely choose to do tithing that way.  I personally wouldn't because I want the blessings from paying tithing now and not in 30 years,

You are paying tithing now though. The trust is irrevocable. Once it's in the trust, you will never be able to touch it again.

Quote

and I'd be worried about how I would pay all the tithing I owed if some financial disaster made the trust worth less than what I owed, but some people might not see the same downfalls that I do.

The probability of a negative return over 30 years is very close to zero.

I think the bigger problem is that money now is always worth more than money in the future (see Net Present Value of money). In the scenario outlined above, I earned $750k off the Lord's money. If I had paid annually, the church would have that $750k (assuming they kept their budget the same and invested the surplus). So in one scenario I have the 750k and in the other the Lord does (from a believer's standpoint). But to you they are equal?

Edited February 11, 2020 by SeekingUnderstanding

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Easy to set up a payment on death of all the principal.

You are paying tithing now though. The trust is irrevocable. Once it's in the trust, you will never be able to touch it again.

In my understanding, I'm not paying tithing until I give my money to the Lord.  A trust account, even if it's irrevocable, is still not giving the money to the Lord, until He actually gets it.  As I understand it, at no point during the 30 years would the Lord or His representatives have access to that money, so there's no way, in my view, to say that it's the Lord's money before the 30 years is up.

Quote

The probability of a negative return over 30 years is very close to zero.

You could be right, I have no idea how a financial crisis on the level of the great depression would, or if it would, impact trust accounts.  

Quote

I think the bigger problem is that money now is always worth more than money in the future (see Net Present Value of money). In the scenario outlined above, I earned $750k off the Lord's money. If I had paid annually, the church would have that $750k (assuming they kept their budget the same and invested the surplus). So in one scenario I have the 750k and in the other the Lord does (from a believer's standpoint). But to you they are equal?

I'm not sure I understand your question about them being equal, but I covenanted to give 10% of my increase to the Lord.  As long as I have done that, my tithing obligation is fulfilled.  I can offer more, or in the case you described, allow the church to grow that money in the Lord's name, and that is good in my view, but it doesn't mean that I've paid more in tithing than someone who doesn't do that.   If I do that, and someone else chooses to grow the money for themselves instead of letting the church grow it, and then pays it in tithing, both of us are equal in terms of having fulfilled our tithing covenants completely and fully.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

That $750K certainly wouldn’t be considered tithing by the church’s definition right?

Not in my view.

It does however seem to be lacking in the spirit of tithing and being more concerned about the law...thinking only in terms of the dollar amount given annually and not the sacrifice of belonging and contributing to God's work since one is anticipating even while setting aside the $10,000, the interest will be such that there will be no sacrifice and instead you will have made a profit off of your tithing.

Edited February 11, 2020 by Calm

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You are paying tithing now though.

I disagree. If you maintain control of the money, using it for your own personal enrichment then you haven't actually given anything back to God (who has blessed you with everything to begin with).

If I were a bishop (heaven forfend) and someone came to me and said, 'Look, I know I didn't actually pay any tithing this year, but I allocated funds that are the equivalent of what I owe in tithing which will, at some future date, eventually be turned over to the church.' I would say, 'Well, that's nice, but you aren't a full tithe payer this year. When you decide to pay an honest tithe, come back and we'll talk.'

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

6 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I disagree. If you maintain control of the money, using it for your own personal enrichment then you haven't actually given anything back to God (who has blessed you with everything to begin with).

If I were a bishop (heaven forfend) and someone came to me and said, 'Look, I know I didn't actually pay any tithing this year, but I allocated funds that are the equivalent of what I owe in tithing which will, at some future date, eventually be turned over to the church.' I would say, 'Well, that's nice, but you aren't a full tithe payer this year. When you decide to pay an honest tithe, come back and we'll talk.'

 

Can you point to the scripture and verse where it gives the period of time when tithing is due? Is it immediate? Monthly, quarterly, annually? Calm's father paid every other year. Is this not allowed? 

 

From my perspective, the scheme I laid out is morally wrong unless I give the whole fund to the Church at the end. The church apparently doesn't view money made off tithing dollars to be tithing dollars however, so it would seem that they would be fine with that situation, so long as you eventually paid.

[Calm]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The church apparently doesn't view money made off tithing dollars to be tithing dollars however,

There is tithing and there is money consecrated to the Lord.  Tithing is what people sacrifice, no one is sacrificing by paying interest...that is a financial business transaction.  It doesn't make the interest received any less sacred than the tithing imo as it is the Lord's.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

You could be right, I have no idea how a financial crisis on the level of the great depression would, or if it would, impact trust accounts.  

$100 invested in stocks in 1929 before the market crashed would have been worth about $190 30 years later.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

There is tithing and there is money consecrated to the Lord.  Tithing is what people sacrifice, no one is sacrificing by paying interest...that is a financial business transaction.  It doesn't make the interest received any less sacred than the tithing imo as it is the Lord's.

Of course people are sacrificing to earn the interest! The money could have been spent to good purpose today. It could be invested in someone's education (enabling a better life lived). It could be invested in a new chapel closer to someone's home (reducing commute time) and perhaps growing the church faster there. It could fund the church's missionary efforts. It could be invested in a new temple allowing someone to be endowed who would not otherwise have been able. It could be used to save lives lost to cancer or malaria. Anyone who could have been helped by the tithing saved away is sacrificing so that interest can be earned. Even if you believe saving to be the prudent course of action above and beyond the needs of the current saints, saving the money requires sacrifice!

Edited February 11, 2020 by SeekingUnderstanding

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Of course people are sacrificing to earn the interest! The money could have been spent to good purpose today. It could be invested in someone's education (enabling a better life lived). It could be invested in a new chapel closer to someone's home (reducing commute time) and perhaps growing the church faster there. It could be invested in a new temple allowing someone to be endowed who would not otherwise have been able. It could be used to save lives lost to cancer or malaria. Anyone who could have been helped by the tithing saved away is sacrificing so that interest can be earned. Even if you believe saving to be the prudent course of action above and beyond the needs of the current saints, saving the money requires sacrifice!

I think most of us here believe that we are commanded to pay tithes and offerings.  And so we want to do it and will do it no matter what.  But, this EPA whistleblower might make some faithful members wonder:  if the Church doesn't need my tithes at this time to do the work of the Lord, than perhaps I can send my tithes and offerings to other organizations that will put it to use in that work now.

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Of course people are sacrificing to earn the interest! The money could have been spent to good purpose today. It could be invested in someone's education (enabling a better life lived). It could be invested in a new chapel closer to someone's home (reducing commute time) and perhaps growing the church faster there. It could fund the church's missionary efforts. It could be invested in a new temple allowing someone to be endowed who would not otherwise have been able. It could be used to save lives lost to cancer or malaria. Anyone who could have been helped by the tithing saved away is sacrificing so that interest can be earned. Even if you believe saving to be the prudent course of action above and beyond the needs of the current saints, saving the money requires sacrifice!

Just to be clear, my dad paid it for the year ahead and the year past in December, so he was always 'current' in an annual sense.  He was 11 months behind for a year and than 12 months ahead if one believes tithing should be paid monthly, but the Church says annually.

Sorry if it was confusing. 

Edited February 11, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Of course people are sacrificing to earn the interest! The money could have been spent to good purpose today. It could be invested in someone's education (enabling a better life lived). It could be invested in a new chapel closer to someone's home (reducing commute time) and perhaps growing the church faster there. It could fund the church's missionary efforts. It could be invested in a new temple allowing someone to be endowed who would not otherwise have been able. It could be used to save lives lost to cancer or malaria. Anyone who could have been helped by the tithing saved away is sacrificing so that interest can be earned. Even if you believe saving to be the prudent course of action above and beyond the needs of the current saints, saving the money requires sacrifice!

Those are not sacrifices a person has control over though, the decision on how to spend the money is someone else's even if they might benefit from it.

To me the sacrifice is a huge part (and in fact I would say the vast majority of the sacrifice for those who tithing doesn't require them to make choices involving quality of life, at least upper middle class and above and maybe middle class...not sure what that covers these days)  about giving up control and putting it into the hands of the Lord.

Edited February 11, 2020 by Calm