Popular Post bluebell Posted December 17, 2019 Popular Post Posted December 17, 2019 2 hours ago, Meadowchik said: I'd say that a rainy-day fund is prudent, but this is no mere rainy-fund by any objective standard. I think that the church could avoid significant misunderstanding if it could return to the transparency of spending it had 60+ years ago. If it really costs the church 6 billon a year to run things, then having 16 years worth of savings that unreasonable? 5
SeekingUnderstanding Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-finances-and-a-growing-global-church Posted in 2018: Quote While the vast majority of its financial resources comes from the tithes and offerings of Church members, the Church also holds business interests that help in accomplishing its mission. “Essentially,” President Gordon B. Hinckley explained, “the business assets which the Church has today are an outgrowth of enterprises which were begun in the pioneer era of our history when we were isolated in the valleys of the mountains of western America.” President Hinckley noted the sugar beet industry, the Hotel Utah, media and merchandising interests as examples of early Church enterprises. “The Church has maintained certain real estate holdings,” he continued, “particularly those contiguous to Temple Square, to help preserve the beauty and the integrity of the core of the city. All of these commercial properties are tax-paying entities.” He observed that “the combined income from all of these business interests is relatively small and would not keep the work going for longer than a very brief period” (“Questions and Answers,” Ensign, Nov. 1985, 49). No, not misleading at all...
SeekingUnderstanding Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 5 minutes ago, bluebell said: If it really costs the church 6 billon a year to run things, then having 16 years worth of savings that unreasonable? Yes. Again, the church is currently earning more than 6 billion a year off its investments. So in actuality the amount saved allows the church to operate in perpetuity with no tithing income.
Popular Post Calm Posted December 17, 2019 Popular Post Posted December 17, 2019 1 hour ago, Meadowchik said: Objectively it looks like blind faith so I am expressing my opinion on it. You declaring yourself objective isn’t something that actually establishes objectivity. 10
Tacenda Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 I hope my MIL will see the wealth and think about changing her trust fund she has with the church. She and my FIL, who is deceased now, went to each of their children a few years ago and asked how they were doing financially. And then told them that they were donating a good portion of the monies to the church. That is why my husband quit paying tithing. Maybe she may change her mind and leave some money for her grandchildren/great grandchildren for a rainy day fund for college, medical bills etc., hopefully.
Popular Post juliann Posted December 17, 2019 Popular Post Posted December 17, 2019 This reminded me to pay the last of my tithing before the end of the year. 9
Calm Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 (edited) 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? You do have a point even if not legal fraud. I don’t think we register the difference these days since we are used to having access to everything. Privileges we have begin to feel like rights after awhile. Edited December 17, 2019 by Calm 1
bsjkki Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 (edited) 9 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-finances-and-a-growing-global-church Posted in 2018: No, not misleading at all... He was discussing the commercial interests of the church. This fund is not in that category. This is what he said about reserve funds. “Church members are taught to “gradually build a financial reserve by regularly saving [a portion of their income]” (Providing in the Lord’s Way: Summary of a Leader’s Guide to Welfare [booklet, 2009], 2). The Church applies this same principle in its own savings and investments. In addition to food and emergency supplies, the Church also sets aside funds each year for future needs. These funds are added to Church reserves, which include stocks and bonds, taxable businesses, agricultural interests and commercial and residential property. Investments can be accessed in times of hardship or to meet the emerging needs of a growing, global faith in its mission to preach the gospel to all nations and prepare for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ (see Gérald Caussé, “In the Lord’s Way: The Spiritual Foundations of Church Financial Self-Reliance,” Church Newsroom, Mar. 2, 2018). Some investments serve a dual purpose. For example, Church President Gordon B. Hinckley stated that “we have felt that good farms, over a long period, represent a safe investment where the assets of the Church may be preserved and enhanced, while at the same time they are available as an agricultural resource to feed people should there come a time of need” (“The State of the Church,” Ensign, May 1991, 54). Another example is the Church’s participation in the development of downtown Salt Lake City. With its investment in City Creek (a mixed-use development that includes retail space, residential units, office space and parking), the Church enhanced the environs of Temple Square and underscored a commitment to Salt Lake City, Utah, where it is headquartered. The investment increased local economic activity during a financial downturn and attracted visitors and residents to Salt Lake City’s historic downtown. The Church’s reserves are overseen by Church leaders and managed by professional advisers, consistent with wise and prudent stewardship and modern investment management principles. Ultimately, all funds earned by the Church’s investments go back to supporting its mission to invite souls to come unto Christ.” Edited December 17, 2019 by bsjkki 4
pogi Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 9 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-finances-and-a-growing-global-church Posted in 2018: No, not misleading at all... That was said in 1985. My understanding is this reserve wasn't started until the mid 90's and was nowhere near what it is today. 10 years before that, his comment may have been very accurate. 4
juliann Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 2 minutes ago, Tacenda said: I hope my MIL will see the wealth and think about changing her trust fund she has with the church. She and my FIL, who is deceased now, went to each of their children a few years ago and asked how they were doing financially. And then told them that they were donating a good portion of the monies to the church. That is why my husband quit paying tithing. Maybe she may change her mind and leave some money for her grandchildren/great grandchildren for a rainy day fund for college, medical bills etc., hopefully. I understand the resentment over not receiving someone else's money, what I don't understand is the willingness to admit it. 2
Nofear Posted December 17, 2019 Author Posted December 17, 2019 9 minutes ago, The Nehor said: I am also interested to hear your argument on how using incognito mode or clearing your browser’s cookies and history constitute fraud. I think they allow 3 free articles for non-subscribers to view (or something like that). Cookies were a method of identification used and so clearing cookies can let you avoid that. It's like a fair ride where everybody gets 2 free rides but after that you have to pay. They track who comes in by stamping your hand. If you wash off the stamp and then come back in for a third ride, is that honest? I'm not so bothered by such moral complexities. The model isn't one I can support (perhaps even as an ethical imperative?). But this is a topic not really relevant to mormondialogue.org.https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2019/02/25/exploring-alternative-funding-models-for-the-web/ 1
Popular Post ksfisher Posted December 17, 2019 Popular Post Posted December 17, 2019 (edited) https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2019/12/17/21026103/the-washington-post-mormon-church-whistleblower-says-billions-thank-goodness Another perspective. " In an age of ballooning federal deficits, massive student debt and failed pension promises, we should perhaps be a bit slower to blow whistles when an organization — once on the brink of financial ruin — actually stays out of debt and saves for a rainy day. This is especially important for a church, a common place to which people turn for help during times of economic distress." " The Post’s whistleblower puts the church’s financial holdings at $100 billion, but more substantiated financial leaks from last year put the numbers closer to $32 billion. " " After publishing an exhaustive 1,000-page deep dive into the church’s finances, noted historian and long-time church critic, D. Michael Quinn, characterized the sweeping narrative history of church finances as “an enormously faith-promoting story.” He said that if people understood the “the larger picture” on church finances they would “see the church is not a profit-making business.” Yes, the church saves and invests its surplus pennies, but it also helps vastly reduce the debt of college students, gives to the poor regardless of background and supports one of the largest non-governmental welfare programs in the country. Most importantly, it does all this without enriching those at the top. " Edited December 17, 2019 by ksfisher 14
Danzo Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 59 minutes ago, hoo rider said: Your comment doesn't make sense to me. A whistleblower isn't required (or even given the option) to prove non-compliance with the law; that is the role of the prosecutor. The only role the whistleblower has is to make facts available to the prosecutor that the prosecutor would not otherwise be aware of. In other words, if a court case is filed it will not be Nielson v. Ensign; it would be IRS v. Ensign. 1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: They filed a whistleblower complaint with the irs. No need for representation. They are not suing the church. The IRS will presumably investigate and determine if there was any wrong doing. I personally doubt it. The church is anything but dumb, and I expect them to be legally in the clear. https://www.irs.gov/compliance/how-do-you-file-a-whistleblower-award-claim-under-section-7623-a-or-b 51 minutes ago, smac97 said: 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 The controversy would be for the amount of the recovery. These cases are litigated all of the time. With that much money at stake, you can be be sure the amount of the award would be disputed. Nielson would have to prove how much he contributed, what information given wasn't available the IRS previously. The amount of the potential recovery is practically guarantees the matter would be litigated. Much of the litigation would center around the content of the initial whistle blower report. The case would be titled Nielson vs Commissioner of Internal Revenue, if it got that far. IRS Code 7623 gives jurisdiction to the US tax court. Of particular note "Any individual described in paragraph (1) or (2) may be represented by counsel." (7623 (b)(6)(B) When the code itself mentions counsel, I would take it seriously Of course, he could do it pro se (like he already appears to be doing). But there is the old saying "A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client" 1
pogi Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 11 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: Yes. Again, the church is currently earning more than 6 billion a year off its investments. So in actuality the amount saved allows the church to operate in perpetuity with no tithing income. Without growth that may be accurate. If growth continues on as it has (look at the chart I posted) our numbers will more than double in the next 100 years. 6 billion will not be near enough. Money will eventually run out.
Avatar4321 Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 11 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: Don't you think that that allegation has to be proven first? Or even there being evidence...
Calm Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 1 hour ago, mgy401 said: A couple of thoughts (assuming the financial numbers in the allegation are correct): Well summarized and stated (can’t give you points yet)
CV75 Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 3 hours ago, Meadowchik said: Joseph F. Smith, prophet at 1907 General Conference: "Furthermore, I want to say to you, we may not be able to reach it right away, but we expect to see the day when we will not have to ask you for one dollar of donation for any purpose, except that which you volunteer to give of your own accord, because we will have tithes sufficient in the storehouse of the Lord to pay everything that is needful for the advancement of the kingdom of God. I want to live to see that day, if the Lord will spare my life. It does not make any difference, though, so far as that is concerned, whether I live or not. That is the true policy, the true purpose of the Lord in the management of the affairs of His Church." It would seem we're seeing that day. Donations were and still are in addition to tithe ... Tithing (as are fast offerings) is a dynamic principle, and "tithes sufficient in the storehouse" means that tithes alone would pay for advancing the kingdom of God. we are not at that point yet. We are only at the point where we do not require things like budget and building assessments. 1
Lloyd Christmas Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 The IRS already knows everything about the church's finances. It creates a bad precedent when the IRS becomes the gatekeeper on how much a tax-exempt organization should use for charitable purposes. I'm actually proud of the church for being smart with their finances. Because you think the church should do more than they are doing does not mean that you are right. I personally hope that they get up in the trillions. It's hilarious that people that aren't members or don't even pay tithing have an issue with this. Please post a link to the Catholic/Baptist/JW/etc. thread that you are complaining on as well.
Popular Post juliann Posted December 17, 2019 Popular Post Posted December 17, 2019 I had several reactions to this story including, 1. Wondering how Mormonleaks is feeling right now. 2. Amazement that there is this much money and not even a hint that leaders profited from it. 3. In contrast to #3, a "whistleblower" who does expect to profit. 4. No apparent awareness that the Church is entering into an era where much of the population is from impoverished developing countries. 5. The usual brain dead talking points about how much the church spends on charity without accounting for very expensive but volunteer services that it organizes. 11
Tacenda Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 3 minutes ago, juliann said: I understand the resentment over not receiving someone else's money, what I don't understand is the willingness to admit it. My husband worked for his dad's business most of his life as an ironworker with his brothers, often for less money, to help their dad. They also wanted to start their own business or work with other companies for better pay and for other reasons. Their dad asked that they stay and he would make it worth it in the end. But that never happened. The other brothers still pay tithing but my husband doesnt, he figured his tithing is already being paid, but he is inactive now. And doesn't have the testimony of tithing. Does that answer your bewilderment?
SeekingUnderstanding Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 10 minutes ago, pogi said: That was said in 1985. My understanding is this reserve wasn't started until the mid 90's and was nowhere near what it is today. 10 years before that, his comment may have been very accurate. Yet it was quoted in 2018 and posted. Good way to mislead without actually lying I guess.
Popular Post Avatar4321 Posted December 17, 2019 Popular Post Posted December 17, 2019 10 hours ago, gtaggart said: So some of you are really buying the idea that the Brethren are scamming the members? Really? That there is not more to the story than what Br. Nielsen blew through his whistle? Oh well. Apparently they are scamming the members to set up a rainy day fund they have told us about for years with absolutely zero benefit to themselves. Its strange most Churches get into scandals for leaders misusing church funds for their personal use. The Church of Jesus Christ is in a "scandal" because we are wisely saving and investing funds for the future. 6
pogi Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 4 minutes ago, Lloyd Christmas said: I'm actually proud of the church for being smart with their finances. Me too. Some will see this as evidence that the Lord is behind this organization and is fulfilling Book of Mormon prophecy of prosperity in the land, and early prophecy that the church will be self-sufficient without tithe payers (said at a time when the church had nothing - remarkable!); Others will view it as evidence that the organization has abandoned the Lord.
Calm Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 16 minutes ago, juliann said: This reminded me to pay the last of my tithing before the end of the year. Me too. Love the ease of online payment.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 11 minutes ago, Danzo said: The controversy would be for the amount of the recovery. These cases are litigated all of the time. With that much money at stake, you can be be sure the amount of the award would be disputed. Nielson would have to prove how much he contributed, what information given wasn't available the IRS previously. The amount of the potential recovery is practically guarantees the matter would be litigated. Much of the litigation would center around the content of the initial whistle blower report. The case would be titled Nielson vs Commissioner of Internal Revenue, if it got that far. IRS Code 7623 gives jurisdiction to the US tax court. Of particular note "Any individual described in paragraph (1) or (2) may be represented by counsel." (7623 (b)(6)(B) When the code itself mentions counsel, I would take it seriously Of course, he could do it pro se (like he already appears to be doing). But there is the old saying "A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client" Which only happens once the IRS actually collects. Are you admitting wrong doing on the part of the church!?
Recommended Posts