Tribune Article and New Details About The 100 Billion Fund

[theplains]

On 12/23/2019 at 6:51 PM, Calm said:

Because the author wasn’t that concerned with being accurate, he wanted drama more. 

Fortunately we have the IRS.  If they feel an investigation is warranted, an audit will be performed.

[Meadowchik]

On 12/23/2019 at 9:04 PM, ksfisher said:

The main reason I can see on this thread (and others about the same subject) for calls for transparency is that people don't trust the First Presidency.

That sounds like naiveté on your part. No one has to have bad intentions to do bad things.

[Meadowchik]

3 hours ago, theplains said:

Fortunately we have the IRS.  If they feel an investigation is warranted, an audit will be performed.

Hopefully there isn't undue LDS pressure in the pertinent IRS branch that would prevent a proper audit.

[ksfisher]

10 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

That sounds like naiveté on your part. No one has to have bad intentions to do bad things.

So if people do trust the First Presidency to manage the finances of the Lord's church correctly, why do they want the details on what is going on?  Curiosity? 

[provoman]

3 hours ago, theplains said:

Fortunately we have the IRS.  If they feel an investigation is warranted, an audit will be performed.

 

25 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Hopefully there isn't undue LDS pressure in the pertinent IRS branch that would prevent a proper audit.

And hopefully there isn't undue pressure from exmormons and/or exmo-anti-mormons in the pertinent IRS Branch that would prevent a proper audit.

[Calm]

52 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Hopefully there isn't undue LDS pressure in the pertinent IRS branch that would prevent a proper audit.

You really think with billions at stake and the possibility of a new governmental relationship with churches in the works, it will be a branch that won't be under intense scrutiny?

[ksfisher]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

You really think with billions at stake and the possibility of a new governmental relationship with churches in the works, it will be a branch that won't be under intense scrutiny?

I would imagine the decision will be made by someone in Washington DC.

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

So if people do trust the First Presidency to manage the finances of the Lord's church correctly, why do they want the details on what is going on?  Curiosity? 

One can trust them to have good intent and do many good things without expecting them to be able to do what's best with the finances of the church, especially funds of this magnitude. 

My bias is that I do not expect them to have magical powers, I expect them to be human, and I think more openness is better for a human undertaking as large and complex as the church. It was more open before, btw.

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, provoman said:

 

And hopefully there isn't undue pressure from exmormons and/or exmo-anti-mormons in the pertinent IRS Branch that would prevent a proper audit.

Agreed.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, provoman said:

 

And hopefully there isn't undue pressure from exmormons and/or exmo-anti-mormons in the pertinent IRS Branch that would prevent a proper audit.

I think the opposite, if Lars is right that there is 90% LDS that work at the IRS branch in Ogden.

[ksfisher]

14 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I think the opposite, if Lars is right that there is 90% LDS that work at the IRS branch in Ogden.

How would anyone know that?

And don’t you think, with this many dollars allegedly involved and with policy repercussions that would change the nature of government oversight of churches and interpretation of tax law, that it will be someone in Washington DC making the decisions? 

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, ksfisher said:

So if people do trust the First Presidency to manage the finances of the Lord's church correctly, why do they want the details on what is going on?  Curiosity? 

I think probably two reasons.

1) Curiosity and/or 2) they don’t actually trust the FP to manage the money correctly and want to have some oversight in the issue. 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

How would anyone know that?

And don’t you think, with this many dollars allegedly involved and with policy repercussions that would change the nature of government oversight of churches and interpretation of tax law, that it will be someone in Washington DC making the decisions? 

Weber Co. is only roughly 53% LDS at the last census. 

It seems sketchy to assume that that would translate to a 90% member rate at the IRS branch there. 

[mrmarklin]

If the $100B is truly derived from tithing, the funds are not subject to IRS scrutiny.  There are no reporting requirements. And it’s likely that we’ve heard the last of this. 

[Bob Crockett]

6 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

If the $100B is truly derived from tithing, the funds are not subject to IRS scrutiny.  There are no reporting requirements. And it’s likely that we’ve heard the last of this. 

And further there is no obligation to spend that money, although the church has said it spends its money on temples, meetinghouses and missions, principally.  Thus, there is no obligation to spend it on hurricane relief or on the poor.  "The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me."  Matt. 26:11.  When people pay tithing, usually there is no expectation about how the money will be spent.  There is no obligation for transparency as the D&C plainly says the contributor does not get his or her money back.  Certainly, when the D&C was revealed there was no obligation whatsoever, in law or religion, for transparency.  "Transparency" is a modern almost meaningless buzzword used to browbeat an entity protected by the U.S. Constitution. 

But I know from personal experience with people close to me that this is a very bitter pill to swallow -- maybe the straw the broke the camel's back.   There is no reasoning with these dear ones.  I feel despair over their choices but my choice has been made.  I figure the most selfish, irresponsible decision to jettison the Lord would be over money.  For the love of money is the root of all evil.

Edited December 27, 2019 by Bob Crockett

[Analytics]

7 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

If the $100B is truly derived from tithing, the funds are not subject to IRS scrutiny.  There are no reporting requirements. And it’s likely that we’ve heard the last of this. 

My best guess is that about 30% of it is tithing and the remaining 70% is investment income. When a corporation (Ensign Peak) claims to be non-profit yet it earns tens of billions in profits and spends literally zero on religion or charity, is it complying with the spirit and the letter of the tax code? According to Sam Brunson, a Latter-day Saint who also happens to be a law professor who specializes in federal income tax:

 Is Ensign Peak Advisers violating the tax law?

It’s not entirely clear. The Post reporters talked to Phil Hackney for the story, which was a really good move on their part. Phil is a friend, and knows a ton about the law governing tax-exempt organizations. And Phil points out that, if Ensign Peak Advisers has only held and invested money, and never paid any out, that’s probably a bad thing.

https://bycommonconsent.com/2019/12/17/some-thoughts-about-ensign-peak-advisers-and-the-church/

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

On 12/22/2019 at 2:52 PM, Calm said:

More details about allegations, not necessarily actual facts, let’s be clear. 

Few things anymore are always facts, speculation is what makes people’s ears perk up. When it comes to criticizing the Church, it is “any port in a storm”.

[sunstoned]

On 12/26/2019 at 12:17 PM, ksfisher said:

So if people do trust the First Presidency to manage the finances of the Lord's church correctly, why do they want the details on what is going on?  Curiosity? 

If everything is above board, then why work in darkness?  Why not expose your work to the light of honest scrutiny, just like most churches do?  

[Duncan]

So, in Canada we have to file with the Canadian Revenue Agency, do Americans have to file with the IRS? Wouldn't the IRS already know about how much cash and assets the Church already has?

[LoudmouthMormon]

On 12/26/2019 at 12:37 PM, provoman said:

 

On 12/26/2019 at 12:07 PM, Meadowchik said:

Hopefully there isn't undue LDS pressure in the pertinent IRS branch that would prevent a proper audit.

And hopefully there isn't undue pressure from exmormons and/or exmo-anti-mormons in the pertinent IRS Branch that would prevent a proper audit.

Don't worry folks, the IRS is not buffeted about and directed by the whims of faithful or faithless.  

Instead, the IRS is buffeted about and directed by the whims of federal politicians.

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

If everything is above board, then why work in darkness?  Why not expose your work to the light of honest scrutiny, just like most churches do?  

Keeping things confidential is not the same as working in darkness.  Many times in the scriptures the Lord or one of his prophets commands another not to reveal something to the world.  

Joseph Smith, for example, was asked not to show the plates to others.

Why expose church finances to endless critique by enemies of the church and endless second guessing by those who believe they can run the affairs of the church better than those the Lord has chosen?

[Meadowchik]

9 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Keeping things confidential is not the same as working in darkness.  Many times in the scriptures the Lord or one of his prophets commands another not to reveal something to the world.  

Joseph Smith, for example, was asked not to show the plates to others.

Why expose church finances to endless critique by enemies of the church and endless second guessing by those who believe they can run the affairs of the church better than those the Lord has chosen?

Because, to put it simply, power corrupts. The intentions of the few on top, no matter how noble, do not automatically get converted to good action, but can by the sheer virtue of concentrated power, be distorted into harm.

[sunstoned]

16 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

And further there is no obligation to spend that money, although the church has said it spends its money on temples, meetinghouses and missions, principally.  Thus, there is no obligation to spend it on hurricane relief or on the poor.  "The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me."  Matt. 26:11.  When people pay tithing, usually there is no expectation about how the money will be spent.  There is no obligation for transparency as the D&C plainly says the contributor does not get his or her money back.  Certainly, when the D&C was revealed there was no obligation whatsoever, in law or religion, for transparency.  "Transparency" is a modern almost meaningless buzzword used to browbeat an entity protected by the U.S. Constitution. 

But I know from personal experience with people close to me that this is a very bitter pill to swallow -- maybe the straw the broke the camel's back.   There is no reasoning with these dear ones.  I feel despair over their choices but my choice has been made.  I figure the most selfish, irresponsible decision to jettison the Lord would be over money.  For the love of money is the root of all evil.

I do find myself in agreement with you that the great lengths the church goes through to ensure secrecy of its use of donated funds is the straw that has broken many backs.  I am also totally in agreement with the bolded statement above. Though I suspect our perspectives differ.

[Bob Crockett]

5 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I do find myself in agreement with you that the great lengths the church goes through to ensure secrecy of its use of donated funds is the straw that has broken many backs.  I am also totally in agreement with the bolded statement above. Though I suspect our perspectives differ.

I can see how the church is very secretive about its money.   The reason is obvious.  Disclosure would impede donations. 

[Bob Crockett]

21 hours ago, Analytics said:

My best guess is that about 30% of it is tithing and the remaining 70% is investment income. When a corporation (Ensign Peak) claims to be non-profit yet it earns tens of billions in profits and spends literally zero on religion or charity, is it complying with the spirit and the letter of the tax code? According to Sam Brunson, a Latter-day Saint who also happens to be a law professor who specializes in federal income tax:

 Is Ensign Peak Advisers violating the tax law?

It’s not entirely clear. The Post reporters talked to Phil Hackney for the story, which was a really good move on their part. Phil is a friend, and knows a ton about the law governing tax-exempt organizations. And Phil points out that, if Ensign Peak Advisers has only held and invested money, and never paid any out, that’s probably a bad thing.

https://bycommonconsent.com/2019/12/17/some-thoughts-about-ensign-peak-advisers-and-the-church/

I challenge this.  What law requires a religion to spend money?