The church's billions in perspective.

[Teancum]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So your complaint about the Church’s tax exempt status is pretty weak sauce. 

No it is not.  Why should a church not be subject to the same rules all other tax exempts are subject to?  The LDS Church benefits greatly from its tax exempt status.  At the expense of all American tax payers.

[ttribe]

Just now, Teancum said:

No it is not.  Why should a church not be subject to the same rules all other tax exempts are subject to?  The LDS Church benefits greatly from its tax exempt status.  At the expense of all American tax payers.

Leah Remini has been making this same argument about Scientology for years.  So far, the government has expressed no interest in addressing this issue.

[Teancum]

11 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I would bet that they say that so the critics would stop complaining about it and not because they personally don't trust how it is being spent.

It is not about trust really.  And I bet you are wrong.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Again so what? A majority of stupidity does not make something right.

You’re missing the point of my response. In concept, a thing can be right or wrong irrespective of majority opinion. In this instance, the majority seems to favor what is right. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

But you must have an opinion. It was you who brought it up. Do you really think the Church should have let the company go under and leave all those policy holders high and dry? Or is it just that you were ill-informed about the facts of the matter? 

So, you're suggesting they couldn't have used funds from their many for-profit subsidiaries? And you know this how?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

No it is not.  Why should a church not be subject to the same rules all other tax exempts are subject to?  The LDS Church benefits greatly from its tax exempt status.  At the expense of all American tax payers.

Untold millions benefit from what the Church does. So the tax exemption is justified. 
 

Again, you are free to support some other tax-exempt cause or charity that you find more to your liking. That’s the beauty of living in America. 

[Teancum]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Untold millions benefit from what the Church does. So the tax exemption is justified. 
 

Again, you are free to support some other tax-exempt cause or charity that you find more to your liking. That’s the beauty of living in America. 

Untold millions?  How so? And your conclusion  it is justified is biased.  But even if it is so what?  That does not negate the point I made at all.

And I don't support charities anymore that are not financially transparent other than I still give to LDS fast offerings because that is used on the local level $ for $.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Teancum said:

Untold millions?  How so? And your conclusion  it is justified is biased.  But even if it is so what?  That does not negate the point I made at all.

And I don't support charities anymore that are not financially transparent other than I still give to LDS fast offerings because that is used on the local level $ for $.

Again, it's just weird that there is such outrage that anyone would expect financial transparency. I have no idea why. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

So, you're suggesting they couldn't have used funds from their many for-profit subsidiaries? And you know this how?

I’m saying I fully approve of what was done and find it a worthy use of tithing funds — if tithing funds were indeed used. 
 

But you’re dodging my question. Here it is again:

 Do you really think the Church should have let the company go under and leave all those policy holders high and dry? Or is it just that you were ill-informed about the facts of the matter? 
 

If you brought it up ignorantly, just say so. No shame in admitting that. 

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Actually the $130 billion is a stock and bond fund, but yes you are correct in that it's real wealth is in it's real property assets of land, buildings and AgReserve which some have estimated at well over $500 billion.

I am well aware of that investment fund, which comes originally from tithing and has grown.  We have discussed it many times on this board.  And you here admit that the "vast wealth" (your term) is in land and bldgs just as I said.  An honest discussion of LDS Church finances must always include the full range of facts, rather than out of context assertions.

5 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Actually I did not make up that term, it is the one used by church PR following the leak.  So it is their term not mine.

Unlike you, I do not care a fig what the LDS PR term is.  I am more interested in accurate portrayals of the facts.

5 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

.............................Meh

So, you take no position on whether the LDS Church is everything the Brethren claim it to be, or whether it is merely a secular organization based on illusory fictions?  Nor do you take a position on how monies should be spent to deliver the maximum long-term help to those in need?  Are you a non-committal nihilist?

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Untold millions?  How so? And your conclusion  it is justified is biased.  But even if it is so what?  That does not negate the point I made at all.

And I don't support charities anymore that are not financially transparent other than I still give to LDS fast offerings because that is used on the local level $ for $.

You’re free to support whom or what you want. I won’t begrudge you or call you “stupid” for doing so. Apparently you’re not inclined to return the favor. 

Edited June 18, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m saying I fully approve of what was done and find it a worthy use of tithing funds — if tithing funds were indeed used. 
 

But you’re dodging my question. Here it is again:

 Do you really think the Church should have let the company go under and leave all those policy holders high and dry? Or is it just that you were ill-informed about the facts of the matter? 
 

If you brought it up ignorantly, just say so. No shame in admitting that. 

And I'm answering that I don't assume that was the only solution. You don't know that, either. 

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

And I'm answering that I don't assume that was the only solution. You don't know that, either. 

You don’t know but what the Church did find some source other than tithing funds, just as you suggest. 
 

And you continue to evade the question. 
 

Edited June 18, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You don’t know but what the Church did find some source other than tithing funds, just as you suggest. 

They used Ensign Peak Advisers, which comes from tithing funds. I'm fine with them bailing out a business, but they should be open about the transportability of sacred funds into for-profit businesses. That apparently doesn't register with you, and that's fine. Doesn't make me evil because it does annoy me a little.

And again, CFR on City Creek being self-sustaining? How would you know that? 

Edited June 18, 2021 by jkwilliams

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Makes one go Hmmm

Makes me go  !!!

[Harry T. Clark]

I'd like to see the church be transparent with their money.  The tithe payers deserve to know where each dollar is going.  And I agree that in exchange for not paying taxes, society at large deserves to know where the money is going.  It might be a boon for missionary work if the church were to start disclosing its finances.  More disclosure would probably mean more support for people centered projects.  Just think of what good in terms of medical science that could be done with all the money the church has amassed over the years?  People would see the church light shine and want to be a part of it.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said:

I'd like to see the church be transparent with their money.  The tithe payers deserve to know where each dollar is going.  And I agree that in exchange for not paying taxes, society at large deserves to know where the money is going.  It might be a boon for missionary work if the church were to start disclosing its finances.  More disclosure would probably mean more support for people centered projects.  Just think of what good in terms of medical science that could be done with all the money the church has amassed over the years?  People would see the church light shine and want to be a part of it.

You must be one of those complainers. 😉

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said:

The tithe payers deserve to know where each dollar is going. 

I wouldn’t mind up to a point...beyond that the cost of having the info available becomes too high for too little return for me when it can be more effectively spent or even saved.  So where each dollar is going, no thanks.

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

I wouldn’t mind up to a point...beyond that the cost of having the info available becomes too high for too little return for me when it can be more effectively spent or even saved.  So where each dollar is going, no thanks.

Issuing annually audited financial statements is expensive but it goes a long way toward addressing the transparency questions.  It should be noted that the Church is required to issue such audited statements in other countries; the U.S. notably does not require them.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

I wouldn’t mind up to a point...beyond that the cost of having the info available becomes too high for too little return for me when it can be more effectively spent or even saved.  So where each dollar is going, no thanks.

I would assume they already have the data due to their accounting and auditing. Not sure what the cost would be of publishing the numbers. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, ttribe said:

Issuing annually audited financial statements is expensive but it goes a long way toward addressing the transparency questions.  It should be noted that the Church is required to issue such audited statements in other countries; the U.S. notably does not require them.

Yes, as I recall, the UK and Canada require financial reports annually. 

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I would assume they already have the data due to their accounting and auditing. Not sure what the cost would be of publishing the numbers. 

An external audit would be an additional cost and not an insignificant one given the size of the organization.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, ttribe said:

An external audit would be an additional cost and not an insignificant one given the size of the organization.

Do the UK and Canada require external audits? 

[ttribe]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

Do the UK and Canada require external audits? 

I believe so, but it's only for the portion of the organization in that country.  To do an audit of the world-wide organization would be a significant undertaking.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, ttribe said:

I believe so, but it's only for the portion of the organization in that country.  To do an audit of the world-wide organization would be a significant undertaking.

I'd imagine so.