The Effect of the Virus on the Church

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Boanerges said:

Actually I don't, it's based some data and assumptions. As near as I can tell at the moment there are just over a 1,000 cases and 7 deaths in Utah. There are about 3.2 million people in Utah, about 63% of which are church members. Even if all 1,000+ cases in Utah were members, that's .03% of the Utah population, hardly a great number, especially if we believe the total number of deaths in the US will be in the 100,000-200,000 range. Utah's share of that 100,000-200,000 (if divided equally among all states, which in reality will likely not be the case based on the New York epicenter) would be over 3,000 deaths. Of course, the church does not report statistics of deaths like this either in Utah or anywhere else and I don't expect them to. It just doesn't appear as though it's really hit us as members yet - but it's far from over.

FWIW, I live in NY (not the city) and have relatives in Utah. I also do have a member friend (not in NY or UT) whose adult child has been diagnosed. I should also note that I believe the church has decided to stop reporting missionary cases, and that belief is based on this statement (found here Newsroom😞

I think it's a reasonable assumption that the virus will strike Utahns and church members in general at about the same rate as the rest of the population - and that could admittedly vary by region.

But there are more members outside the US than in, including many in Europe. Why would you look at Utah to determine numbers of how the Church has been hit so far?

[CV75]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I agree with strategic thinking guiding philanthropy. However, the lack of transparency of the church with its finances makes it difficult to assess and also difficult to defend its wealth accrual, in my opinion.

What is the rationale for accruing wealth, irrespective of the motives, purposes and results of doing so?

Sometimes we say "follow the money" to bring corruption to light. Likewise, if you can identify the good works that are evident, you can easily assess how much that costs.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/bishop-gerald-causse-explains-the-spiritual-foundations-of-church-financial-self-reliance?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/the-churchs-sacred-funds-support-its-priorities-and-mission-to-do-good-says-presiding-bishopric?lang=eng

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2020/2/14/21133740/mormon-church-finances-billions-presiding-bishopric-ensign-peak-tithing-donations-byu-real-estate

What are the Church's good works, and how does wealth accrual play into that? Where is the Church's alleged corruption, and how is wealth accrual sustaining that? Let's come up with some new, defensible allegations of corruption by omission, poor judgement, vehicles for wealth accumulation, and difference of opinion in strategy and tactics.

Edited April 2, 2020 by CV75

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Valentinus said:

There's a local pastor who encourages his congregants, even those without jobs, to continue to pay a full tithe. To which I say, "Hey, moron! Stop being a greedy piece of crap and maybe put some of the tithes and offerings into relief for your own parishioners!" Organizations and people like this guy don't deserve to be in the religion/faith community.

It's kind of hard to tithe without an income.  

I mean, just from a technical point of view, tithing is ten percent of one's increase. No increase = no tithing.  

Of course, if one has sufficient wealth one can still contribute.  In these times, that's what the humanitarian and fast offering funds are for.

[Traela]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I think reasonable people can disagree as to the amount of the need for a reserve fund.  By most measurement $100 billion plus for a church seems excessive.  So let's see what the church does now.  Will the leadership use some of those funds, or even the income from those funds, to relieve suffering, etc.

Harvard has a reserve of $40 billion, for just that one school.  Compared to that, the Church’s reserve does not seem excessive at all.

 

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, Valentinus said:

I would hope they wouldn't be dumb enough to do so.

The LDS Church is saying nothing to me.  I don't attend church anymore, nor does anyone else.  The local church hasn't attempted cyberworship and I suspect that the higher-ups in SLC have not approved it.  I spend my Sundays bicycling or other fun things. 

[Boanerges]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

But there are more members outside the US than in, including many in Europe. Why would you look at Utah to determine numbers of how the Church has been hit so far?

Because the biggest concentration of members is there. If you have data to prove me wrong please share. I would much prefer actual data to compare to the general population. As a matter of reference comparing the general population to Mormon population, New York's population is 19.5 million, of which 93,000 have tested positive. NY has about 83,000 members (rounded), or .4% of the total population or 4 out of every 1000 residents. Following the math, about 370 members in NY should have tested positive - but I don't know that to be the case (and we need to take into account that I live far from the NYC/surrounding county epicenter and know none of the members who live there). It would seem that if there were more local members affected we'd likely know - Mormons are very good at spreading such news and attempting to care for them. Again, we need to take into account that I live in a rural area with relatively few cases, even within the stake boundaries. And, people here are taking social distancing very seriously but it's also much easier here than in NYC (or SLC). So why Utah? Because data where 630 of every 1000 people are members is much more revealing than data where 4 of every 1000 people are members - and Utah data will likely be more revealing because we can more easily see who are members if by no other way than reading Deseret News and/or obituaries. 

Edited April 3, 2020 by Boanerges

[Boanerges]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

There is no way they will not tell people to stop paying tithing. and I bet there is a conference address this weekend that emphasizes paying tithing.

I am willing to bet the same - at least one tithing talk in these uncertain times.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

I think reasonable people can disagree as to the amount of the need for a reserve fund.  By most measurement $100 billion plus for a church seems excessive.  So let's see what the church does now.  Will the leadership use some of those funds, or even the income from those funds, to relieve suffering, etc.

It may not be enough for the hard times to come, Teancum.  My only optimism is in the Lord, and that I may not last to see the good times come around again.  Yep, a decade or more at least.

[mgy401]

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

I think reasonable people can disagree as to the amount of the need for a reserve fund.  By most measurement $100 billion plus for a church seems excessive.  So let's see what the church does now.  Will the leadership use some of those funds, or even the income from those funds, to relieve suffering, etc.

I would be sorry to see the Church start rapidly liquidating an investment portfolio whose value is probably down to two thirds of what it was barely a month ago.  I doubt the Church got to where it is (was) financially, through a strategy of selling low and buying high.

Additionally—while not wanting to excessively downplay the medical and economic effects of this virus; I think it should be noted that they are not in the same ballpark as the sorts of things we’ve seen on a regional basis in the third world for decades—or as the sorts of things that LDS end-times prophecies lead us to expect at an accelerating rate in the future.

Methinks that in 2070, if we were to tell our grandkids that in 2020 we completely blew a $100-billion nest egg to deal with a really bad flu and the fallout from a few lousy days on Wall Street—I think in light of everything our grandkids will have seen by then, they would be absolutely agog at our short-sightedness.

[sunstoned]

5 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

The LDS Church is saying nothing to me.  I don't attend church anymore, nor does anyone else.  The local church hasn't attempted cyberworship and I suspect that the higher-ups in SLC have not approved it.  I spend my Sundays bicycling or other fun things. 

I am continuing to cycle.  I know it sounds silly, but when I ride things seem almost normal for a while anyway.

[Meadowchik]

10 hours ago, CV75 said:

What is the rationale for accruing wealth, irrespective of the motives, purposes and results of doing so?

Sometimes we say "follow the money" to bring corruption to light. Likewise, if you can identify the good works that are evident, you can easily assess how much that costs.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/bishop-gerald-causse-explains-the-spiritual-foundations-of-church-financial-self-reliance?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/the-churchs-sacred-funds-support-its-priorities-and-mission-to-do-good-says-presiding-bishopric?lang=eng

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2020/2/14/21133740/mormon-church-finances-billions-presiding-bishopric-ensign-peak-tithing-donations-byu-real-estate

What are the Church's good works, and how does wealth accrual play into that? Where is the Church's alleged corruption, and how is wealth accrual sustaining that? Let's come up with some new, defensible allegations of corruption by omission, poor judgement, vehicles for wealth accumulation, and difference of opinion in strategy and tactics.

That is not transparency. To me, financial transparency contributes to a healthier relationship between the organisation and its members, and also between an organisation and the public at large. Back to the original point: there are multiple profound (and not shallow!) reasons to criticize the church's handling of finances. 

Edited April 3, 2020 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

16 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Considering the credentials and history of those who want to "assess" the church's finances I doubt transparency would have convinced anyone of anything.

That sounds too vague and generalising to be productive, but then I think that criticism is a valid part of healthy relationship between organisations and their membership, and between organisations and the public. 

[CV75]

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

That is not transparency. To me, financial transparency contributes to a healthier relationship between the organisation and its members, and also between an organisation and the public at large. Back to the original point: there are multiple profound (and not shallow!) reasons to criticize the church's handling of finances. 

Are you saying the lack of transparency denies you a factual basis upon which to criticize? Transparency for transparency's sake is no more valid than criticism for criticisms's sake; likewise transparency for criticism's sake, and that is more negatively biased. My questions do address the "original point" (or your post at least) -- what are the problems with the Church's wealth accrual strategies according to the information provided in the three articles?

[Meadowchik]

28 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Are you saying the lack of transparency denies you a factual basis upon which to criticize? Transparency for transparency's sake is no more valid than criticism for criticisms's sake; likewise transparency for criticism's sake, and that is more negatively biased. My questions do address the "original point" (or your post at least) -- what are the problems with the Church's wealth accrual strategies according to the information provided in the three articles?

Sorry, but I found your previous post confusing and I tried to respond to it the best I could.

Earlier I responded to Robert that criticism over the church's extremely large wealth accrual to not be shallow. I don't think it is shallow. The church volunteering some information about a very small percentage of its wealth is nice, but withholding some very significant information is in my opinion, a problem in an of itself. So there are several problematic layers here. Non-transparency is one problem. Then those (like Robert and you) who point at some information that the church volunteered does not alleviate the problem of non-transparency. Those who argue that the church is using its means strategically can speculate that, but not really make a definitive case without the church providing financial transparency.

You offered some links, but they don't tell the whole story, do they? We're not given or promised the full information, and we're not expected to be owed a full accounting (be we the public or believing members.) That, to me, is a problem.

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, Traela said:

Harvard has a reserve of $40 billion, for just that one school.  Compared to that, the Church’s reserve does not seem excessive at all.

 

Yes and so?

[Teancum]

11 hours ago, mgy401 said:

I would be sorry to see the Church start rapidly liquidating an investment portfolio whose value is probably down to two thirds of what it was barely a month ago.  I doubt the Church got to where it is (was) financially, through a strategy of selling low and buying high.

Additionally—while not wanting to excessively downplay the medical and economic effects of this virus; I think it should be noted that they are not in the same ballpark as the sorts of things we’ve seen on a regional basis in the third world for decades—or as the sorts of things that LDS end-times prophecies lead us to expect at an accelerating rate in the future.

Methinks that in 2070, if we were to tell our grandkids that in 2020 we completely blew a $100-billion nest egg to deal with a really bad flu and the fallout from a few lousy days on Wall Street—I think in light of everything our grandkids will have seen by then, they would be absolutely agog at our short-sightedness.

I am not suggesting the Church spend the entire $100 billion on what is going on now.  And no doubt the value of the funds are down. 

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

That sounds too vague and generalising to be productive, but then I think that criticism is a valid part of healthy relationship between organisations and their membership, and between organisations and the public.  

That sounds too vague and generalizing to be productive.

[Tacenda]

28 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I am not suggesting the Church spend the entire $100 billion on what is going on now.  And no doubt the value of the funds are down. 

I hope the church has honed in on where the funds could be better spent for COVID-19 and mention it during conference on where they are helping, I know a few people out there that are believing LDS that are hoping for the same. I'm sure it's not easy to figure out what where best to spend the sacred funds, they are sacred because it comes from sacrifice on the part of every LDS that donates. 

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Sorry, but I found your previous post confusing and I tried to respond to it the best I could.

Earlier I responded to Robert that criticism over the church's extremely large wealth accrual to not be shallow. I don't think it is shallow. The church volunteering some information about a very small percentage of its wealth is nice, but withholding some very significant information is in my opinion, a problem in an of itself. So there are several problematic layers here. Non-transparency is one problem. Then those (like Robert and you) who point at some information that the church volunteered does not alleviate the problem of non-transparency. Those who argue that the church is using its means strategically can speculate that, but not really make a definitive case without the church providing financial transparency.

You offered some links, but they don't tell the whole story, do they? We're not given or promised the full information, and we're not expected to be owed a full accounting (be we the public or believing members.) That, to me, is a problem.

I understand why you might be offended if you felt the comment that “some of those who were so critical of the Church saving up big time for a rainy day, may now think better of their shallow comments” was aimed at people who take transparency to be the problem. While they are two different things, I can see how people put them together. But which is the more important issue – strategy or transparency?

Do you reject the Church’s explanation that basically we operate on an honor system, from the initial payment of tithing to their eventual disposition? That kind of puts the expectation for transparency in its place, in favor of faith. A so-called lack of transparency is not a problem for those so engaged, whether it is considered a strategy or a religious / spiritual / moral value.

The links I provided are not to counter a claim of a lack of transparency but to show what is done on the honor system, offering you an opportunity to critique that instead. After all, transparency is required where corruption is expected or suspected, given there is enough evidence: do you have any?

Transparency does not have to be built into every system. Political and economic systems, yes; but religious systems, no. And this Church actually says that in so many words, so why would you expect to be “given or promised the full information” and “owed a full accounting (be we the public or believing members.)”?

So I’m not seeing how a so-called lack of transparency is a problem for you, given how religious systems operate, what this one is doing on the honor system, and how strategic judgement varies from institution to institution.

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

That is not transparency. To me, financial transparency contributes to a healthier relationship between the organisation and its members, and also between an organisation and the public at large. Back to the original point: there are multiple profound (and not shallow!) reasons to criticize the church's handling of finances. 

Financial and other sorts of transparency are certainly good ideas, and I have argued for them for years (to a blank wall), but that has nothing to do with the strong belief that irresponsible spending will help anyone.  That has always been false.  It does make some people feel good for a moment, but it is a long term failure and always has been.

[Boanerges]

Is there any indication that during this trying time the church has dipped into the reserve? I have seen articles about the church's humanitarian efforts but it seems those are coming from the general humanitarian funds because they're not really unusual in times of crisis. As someone else said, the portfolio probably has shrunk just as people's 401Ks have shrunk but it's not clear at all to me this is a rainy enough day that the fund has been used.

[carbon dioxide]

On 4/2/2020 at 3:27 PM, Teancum said:

I think reasonable people can disagree as to the amount of the need for a reserve fund.  By most measurement $100 billion plus for a church seems excessive.  So let's see what the church does now.  Will the leadership use some of those funds, or even the income from those funds, to relieve suffering, etc.

Even if the fund was 100 billion, it was mainly in assets like stocks.  Those are down over 30%.  So if the Church had 100 billion, not anymore.

[2BizE]

I hope home church stays a permanent part of the church experience.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

I hope home church stays a permanent part of the church experience.

It already is with the two hour schedule with 'third' hour home.

[Rain]

11 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I hope the church has honed in on where the funds could be better spent for COVID-19 and mention it during conference on where they are helping, I know a few people out there that are believing LDS that are hoping for the same. I'm sure it's not easy to figure out what where best to spend the sacred funds, they are sacred because it comes from sacrifice on the part of every LDS that donates. 

I really hope they don't direct it too specifically.  I think it is great for people to give to fast offerings and humanitarian, but I also love that the church encourages us to give wherever we feel best.  Wherever we feel God is directing us to give.  You get the best of both worlds by having the option to give through the humanitarian fund or through a charity of our own choosing.

 

 

Edited April 4, 2020 by Rain