The church's billions in perspective.

[Amulek]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Do you really think the Church should have let the company go under and leave all those policy holders high and dry?

For the most part, policy holders would be okay. All states which license insurance companies have what is known as a guaranty fund association.

When an insurance company becomes insolvent, the guaranty fund association takes responsibility for servicing those policies. 

And can you guess how they pay for servicing those contracts? Not out of the goodness of their hearts, that's for sure.

No, they do so by charging assessments to every other solvent insurance company operating within the state. They literally pass the buck.

So yes, the church could have just walked away from Beneficial Life and dumped all of that on the state and, by extension, other insurers (who would then bake those costs into their premiums which would end up being passed on to Utah residents as well). 

Instead, the church decided to bail out the company and provide a major benefit to Utah residents. What jerks.  

 

[JAHS]

25 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.

Most tithe payers are not claiming they deserve to know. Mostly just the critics are saying that. Most members trust prophets of God to not to squander the donations given. If they did mishandle the money they would have to answer to God for it and I am sure they would not want that to happen. 
I don't see how more disclosure would make more money available. They would probably handle it the same as always. To suggest differently would mean that they are mishandling the money now.

[ttribe]

Just now, JAHS said:

Most tithe payers are not claiming they deserve to know. Mostly just the critics are saying that. Most members trust prophets of God to not to squander the donations given. If they did mishandle the money they would have to answer to God for it and I am sure they would not want that to happen. 
I don't see how more disclosure would make more money available. They would probably handle it the same as always. To suggest differently would mean that they are mishandling the money now.

How do you know this?

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

How do you know this?

I am still trying to figure out why people are so adamant about not having financial transparency. I don't get it. 

[ttribe]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I am still trying to figure out why people are so adamant about not having financial transparency. I don't get it. 

Every hill is worth dying on, man.  Every. Single. One.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, ttribe said:

Every hill is worth dying on, man.  Every. Single. One.

I can understand saying you don't think it's needed, but I don't get why people think it's evil to even suggest such a wicked thing. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I am still trying to figure out why people are so adamant about not having financial transparency. I don't get it. 

A quick perusal of this thread reveals that on every single page critics and critical former members have used whatever information they could get their hands on to criticise the Church, its leaders, and/or its members in some way. There are all kinds of people I'm willing to share personal information with. People who want to weaponise that information to stir up contention or bitterness strangely do not make it onto my list.

To be forthright, I trust prophets. I don't trust you or your fellow travellers.

Edited June 18, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Hamba Tuhan said:

A quick perusal of this thread reveals that on every single page critics and critical former members have used whatever information they could get their hands on to criticise the Church, its leaders, and/or its members in some way. There are all kinds of people I'm willing to share personal information with. People who want to weaponise that information to stir up contention or trouble strangely do not make it onto my list.

To be forthright, I trust prophets. I don't trust you or your fellow travellers.

So, if I have this straight, you think an evil person like me (or my fellow travelers) would weaponize the truth to attack the church. Really? My goodness, I'm even more evil than I thought!

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I am fine if the church talks about donations it gives. I think this encourages more giving. 

Are you also fine if the Church does not talk about donations it gives?

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

A quick perusal of this thread reveals that on every single page critics and critical former members have used whatever information they could get their hands on to criticise the Church, its leaders, and/or its members in some way. There are all kinds of people I'm willing to share personal information with. People who want to weaponise that information to stir up contention or trouble strangely do not make it onto my list.

To be forthright, I trust prophets. I don't trust you or your fellow travellers.

[Hamba Tuhan]

10 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

So, if I have this straight, you think an evil person like me (or my fellow travelers) would weaponize the truth to attack the church. Really? My goodness, I'm even more evil than I thought!

Please note that the passive-aggressive use of the word evil is yours and yours alone.

But yes, if you're blind to that very thing happening throughout this thread, you are perhaps beyond the ability to empathically understand faithful members.

ETA: See the post directly above this one for further evidence.

ETA again: See the two posts directly below this one for even further evidence.

Edited June 18, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Please note that the passive-aggressive use of the word evil is yours and yours alone.

But yes, if you're blind to that very thing happening throughout this thread, you are perhaps beyond the ability to empathically understand faithful members.

https://www.verywellhealth.com/paranoid-delusions-5095908

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Hamba Tuhan said:

Please note that the passive-aggressive use of the word evil is yours and yours alone.

But yes, if you're blind to that very thing happening throughout this thread, you are perhaps beyond the ability to empathically understand faithful members.

Well, if you're going to accuse me of attacking the church with the truth, perhaps you could show me where I've done that. I simply said I found it slightly annoying that money I gave for religious purpose was used for for-profit purposes. Apparently, you and Scott think that's "weaponizing" information to attack the church. Do you guys use such hyperbole in your everyday conversations, or is just with people like me? And "fellow travelers" is hardly a neutral term, so forgive me for not appreciating the slur.

[ttribe]

5 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Please note that the passive-aggressive use of the word evil is yours and yours alone.

But yes, if you're blind to that very thing happening throughout this thread, you are perhaps beyond the ability to empathically understand faithful members.

ETA: See the post directly above this one for further evidence.

I'm not attacking you.  I'm literally laughing that you said that and were SERIOUS! 

Even as a believer, I was a proponent of additional financial transparency.  I happen to have been a professional auditor for five years, and I taught auditing for 2 years at a university, and I've issued expert opinions on audits in my forensic career.  There are very good reasons for transparency and none of those are being addressed by defenders.  It's just this reactionary line of comments about how critics will misuse the information.  Good grief, if the data is audited and correct, what is the harm?! 

[JAHS]

20 minutes ago, ttribe said:

21 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Most tithe payers are not claiming they deserve to know. Mostly just the critics are saying that. Most members trust prophets of God to not to squander the donations given. If they did mishandle the money they would have to answer to God for it and I am sure they would not want that to happen. 
I don't see how more disclosure would make more money available. They would probably handle it the same as always. To suggest differently would mean that they are mishandling the money now.

How do you know this?

OK I should have said most "faithful active" tithe paying members. It applies to all the active members I have known in my 67 years of life.
Also it seems to be simple logic to me. A faithful active member is not going to question where his money goes because he trusts the church leaders and once it leaves his had it is no longer his.
In fact they consider it belongs to God before it leaves his hand. It never belonged to the church member in the first place.

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, JAHS said:

OK I should have said most "faithful active" tithe paying members. It applies to all the active members I have known in my 67 years of life.
Also it seems to be simple logic to me. A faithful active member is not going to question where his money goes because he trusts the church leaders and once it leaves his had it is no longer his.
In fact they consider it belongs to God before it leaves his hand. It never belonged to the church member in the first place.

That's fine, but your statement implied some precision where there was none.  You are welcome to whatever inferences you wish.  But, we don't actually KNOW what the majority of members actually think about this topic because we actually haven't asked, right?

[jkwilliams]

Just now, ttribe said:

That's fine, but your statement implied some precision where there was none.  You are welcome to whatever inferences you wish.  But, we don't actually KNOW what the majority of members actually think about this topic because we actually haven't asked, right?

I wonder what would happen if they did a poll of members asking a simple question: Should the church issue a detailed financial report every year, as they did until 1959? I doubt most members are as passionately opposed to financial reporting as some people here suggest.

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I'm not attacking you.  I'm literally laughing that you said that and were SERIOUS! 

Even as a believer, I was a proponent of additional financial transparency.  I happen to have been a professional auditor for five years, and I taught auditing for 2 years at a university, and I've issued expert opinions on audits in my forensic career.  There are very good reasons for transparency and none of those are being addressed by defenders.  It's just this reactionary line of comments about how critics will misuse the information.  Good grief, if the data is audited and correct, what is the harm?! 

That's what I don't understand. 

[Fether]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I still give to LDS fast offerings because that is used on the local level $ for $.

Even those donations are the church’s discretion

 

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I'm not attacking you.  I'm literally laughing that you said that and were SERIOUS! 

Paranoid delusions is not an attack?

[ttribe]

Just now, Calm said:

Paranoid delusions is not an attack?

Nope. There's really no reason for everyone to be so grimly humorless.

Although...I will admit...that one was pushing it.

[JAHS]

14 minutes ago, ttribe said:

That's fine, but your statement implied some precision where there was none.  You are welcome to whatever inferences you wish.  But, we don't actually KNOW what the majority of members actually think about this topic because we actually haven't asked, right?

We don't know exactly the numbers, but for the most part we already know what the answer will (should be) be for the active tithe-paying members as I described them. The money was never theirs in the first place, therefore they have no say over how God directs his prophets on how to use it and therefore don't need to know the exact financial numbers.  That is how I and all church members have been taught. 

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, JAHS said:

We don't know exactly the numbers, but for the most part we already know what the answer will (should be) be for the active tithe-paying members as I described them. The money was never theirs in the first place, therefore they have no say over how God directs his prophets on how to use it and therefore don't need to know the exact financial numbers.  That is how I and all church members have been taught. 

I know how we have all been taught, thank you.  You do know the Church used to issue financial statements, though, right?  I'm assuming you also know that the Church does issues financial statements in other countries where it is required, right?

[mgy401]

10 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

$100 billion will last a lot longer than 7 years. Like I said, I don't begrudge the church saving for a rainy day. 

For perspective:  I believe the leaker basically claimed that the Church takes in $7 billion annually, spends $6 billion, and saves the rest.  I believe it was also suggested that the fund grew to its current size from something like $30-$40 billion of “seed money” from either the initial fund corpus or ongoing savings that were channeled to the fund since the late 1990s; with the rest of the value coming from returns on investment over the years.  From this, I take away the following:

1)  A “rainy day fund” of $120 billion would sustain Church operations at their current rate for twenty years.  That’s a lot of money, but not an obscene or inexhaustible amount.  (If you’re saving for retirement, you should also be planning to cover outlays for a period of 20-30 years.)  Moreover, if the Church had to liquidate its investments in a hurry you’d wind up with a market glut of land, stocks, and so on; thus driving down the sale value of those assets.    Someone more financially savvy than me could probably give a better figure; but I’d venture to guess that the “fire sale value” of the Church’s rainy day fund is more on the order of $60-80 billion, or 10-14 years’ worth of operating expenses.  

2) The tax code requires that when that money is spent—whether it be now, or next month, or in twenty years—it has to go to bona fide charitable expenditures.

3)  In broad terms:  for every $7 in tithing I paid in the year 2000, the Church spent $6 of it immediately and invested the seventh dollar to create two more dollars.  Thus the $7 I gave will actually wind up doing $9 worth of good.  This is an awesome arrangement—what other charity will automatically give you a 28.5% match on your donation?  @Hamba Tuhan’s point seems rather reinforced by the fact that instead of saying “holy fetch, that’s a good idea—get me in on that arrangement!”, many are accusing the Church of avarice or broken faith or some other moral failure.

Edited June 18, 2021 by mgy401

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, mgy401 said:

For perspective:  I believe the leaker basically claimed that the Church takes in $7 billion annually, spends $6 billion, and saves the rest.  I believe it was also suggested that the fund grew to its current size from something like $30-$40 billion of “seed money” from either the initial fund corpus or ongoing savings that were channeled to the fund since the late 1990s; with the rest of the value coming from returns on investment over the years.  From this, I take away the following:

1)  A “rainy day fund” of $120 billion would sustain Church operations at their current rate for twenty years.  That’s a lot of money, but not an obscene or inexhaustible amount.  (If you’re saving for retirement, you should also be planning to cover outlays for a period of 20-30 years.)  Moreover, if the Church had to liquidate its investments in a hurry you’d wind up with a market glut of land, stocks, and so on; thus driving down the sale value of those assets.    Someone more financially savvy than I could probably give a better figure; but I’d venture to guess that the “fire sale value” of the Church’s rainy day fund is more on the order of $60-80 billion, or 10-14 years’ worth of operating expenses.  

2) The tax code requires that when that money is spent—whether it be now, or next month, or in twenty years—it has to go to bona fide charitable expenditures.

3)  In broad terms:  for every $7 in tithing I paid in the year 2000, the Church spent $6 of it immediately and invested the seventh dollar to create two more dollars.  Thus the $7 I gave will actually wind up doing $9 worth of good.  This is an awesome arrangement (what other charity will automatically give you a 28.5% match on your donation?); and the fact that it’s being represented as the result of avarice or some other moral failure seems to reinforce @Hamba Tuhan’s point.

As I said, that doesn't bother me at all. I mentioned one issue that I do find slightly annoying, and I'm told I'm attacking the church. Meh.