Calm Posted January 17, 2022 Posted January 17, 2022 (edited) Tacenda, do you really believe that Ensign Peak is doing something illegal, or do you think the Church is exploiting a legal loophole to do something immoral? Or something else? Edited January 17, 2022 by Calm
Rain Posted January 17, 2022 Posted January 17, 2022 6 minutes ago, Calm said: 10% of what? 10% of yearly increase (webbles calculated likely amount). Initially 10% of the full amount (because of an assumption perhaps that this income was completely separate from any other income and donations the church made so any donations made by the Church through other ‘arms’ are irrelevant?) and thereafter 10% of increase? Or something else? Sincere question. There is a huge difference in the amount between the two. There is a huge difference when Ensign Peak is viewed as independent and if it is viewed as part of the Church and thus donations made through other arms apply to it just as its investment amount is counted in as part of the property of the Church. To be consistent, if Ensign Peaks’ money counts as part of the wealth of the Church, then all donations should be included when calculating if coming from the Church, such as overhead for humanitarian efforts, and not just administered by the Church (are fast offerings counted as income of the Church that is then dispensed by the Church or just monies that is given to the poor by church members by agents of the church administered by the Church?). Iow, it is inaccurate to say the Church has $100 billion in Ensign Peak and pays no donations if one is using the $100 billion is part of their wealth. We don’t say someone who earns $2000 a month through a consulting job pays no tithing on it if they direct deposit the $2000 in one bank every month if they also earn $20,000 a month through teaching and besides their usual and luxury expenses, they set aside $2200 out of the $20,000 for tithing every month out of a checking account in another bank. We assume they are calculating their full income which includes the $2000 even if technically that part of their income gets direct deposited into a separate savings account that is never touched. 9 hours ago, Tacenda said: 10% of the earnings from investments would be nice. ETA: And that would hopefully satisfy the rules of being able to be tax exempt for companies like Ensign Peak.
Rain Posted January 17, 2022 Posted January 17, 2022 1 hour ago, Tacenda said: Okay mom and dad... https://www.wikihow.com/Deal-With-an-Adult's-Temper-Tantrum Wasn't meaning to parent. It's just been very obvious over the years that you are unhappy with how the church deals with money. I'm trying to understand you better.
Tacenda Posted January 17, 2022 Posted January 17, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, Calm said: Tacenda, do you really believe that Ensign speak is doing something illegal, or do you think the Church is exploiting a legal loophole to do something immoral? Or something else? I don't believe the church would do anything unlawful, they have a law firm. But I think it's not acting like a church that the Lord would approve of because it's not doing what it asks of it's members. Sure it donates a lot of things/money. But does take members' donations as part of it or maybe most of it, and it provided a machine for members to donate. Which was kind of cool. But if it's true that the Ensign Peak hasn't donated and according to the tax laws it needed to, in order to be tax exempt, it should be. So IMO, it's taking from the US citizens by being tax exempt if they aren't providing help to those in need. The members are expected to pay tithing before feeding their family according to conference talks. Let's see if the church or Ensign Peak, can sacrifice too. 59 minutes ago, Rain said: Wasn't meaning to parent. It's just been very obvious over the years that you are unhappy with how the church deals with money. I'm trying to understand you better. To the both of you, how come you ask answers of me, but I don't seem to get feedback on my thoughts. Such as the tax exempt status for Ensign Peak if it's true they're not giving to charity. Religious organizations[edit] Organization Worth (billion USD) Country Notes The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 100.0 worldwide One whistleblower estimated it at 200 billion.[3] Catholic Church in Germany 26.0 Germany [4] Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple 22.0 India As of 2011.[5] Some sources estimated it at 1 trillion.[6][7] Catholic Church in Australia 20.5 Australia [8] Seventh-day Adventists 15.6 United States As of 1998[9] Church of England 11.97 (8.7 GBP) United Kingdom [10] Trinity Church 6.0 United States [11][12][13] The Vatican (part of the Catholic Church) 4.0 Vatican City [14] Opus Dei (part of the Catholic Church) 2.0 worldwide [15] Catholic Church in the Philippines 2.0 Philippines [16] Church of Scientology 2.0 United States Edited January 17, 2022 by Tacenda
Rain Posted January 17, 2022 Posted January 17, 2022 9 minutes ago, Tacenda said: I don't believe the church would do anything unlawful, they have a law firm. But I think it's not acting like a church that the Lord would approve of because it's not doing what it asks of it's members. Sure it donates a lot of things/money. But does take members' donations as part of it or maybe most of it, and it provided a machine for members to donate. Which was kind of cool. But if it's true that the Ensign Peak hasn't donated and according to the tax laws it needed to, in order to be tax exempt, it should be. So IMO, it's taking from the US citizens by being tax exempt if they aren't providing help to those in need. The members are expected to pay tithing before feeding their family according to conference talks. Let's see if the church or Ensign Peak, can sacrifice too. To the both of you, how come you ask answers of me, but I don't seem to get feedback on my thoughts. Such as the tax exempt status for Ensign Peak if it's true they're not giving to charity. Because I'm trying to understand you, not fix or argue with you. I've tried that route and it didn't work. Obviously, I'm missing some things so I'm trying to figure out what. If you want me to stop asking questions I will.
Tacenda Posted January 17, 2022 Posted January 17, 2022 4 minutes ago, Rain said: Because I'm trying to understand you, not fix or argue with you. I've tried that route and it didn't work. Obviously, I'm missing some things so I'm trying to figure out what. If you want me to stop asking questions I will. Well, I feel like I'm a broken record. I guess I should just take a break. And give you a break.
Popular Post mrmarklin Posted January 17, 2022 Popular Post Posted January 17, 2022 Tacenda, the church doesn’t have to obey US law as a normal charity. It can donate some, none, or all of its money. Church’s are exceptions to the 501c3 rules. 5
Calm Posted January 17, 2022 Posted January 17, 2022 (edited) 49 minutes ago, Tacenda said: But does take members' donations as part of it or maybe most of it, But it doesn’t take 10% of our property, but 10% of increase. So that would be webbles’ calculation, correct? Quote The members are expected to pay tithing before feeding their family according to conference talks. With the expectation the Church will provide the food. Nor does it say how to calculate tithing, so someone might deduct necessary expenses (food, shelter and minimum needed for clothing and transportation) and then tithe on the rest, so the family gets fed first if the parents decide that is how they will pay tithing. I wonder what the counsel would be in the case where someone was isolated from the Church for most of the time and put aside their tithing to pay when in contact with a leader. Would they say don’t touch the tithing you put aside or something along the lines of ‘take from the tithing savings as the Church would be helping you out if it could, but it can’t’? Edited January 17, 2022 by Calm
Calm Posted January 17, 2022 Posted January 17, 2022 Bishops…is there a set way tithing is required to be calculated if short or long term help is asked for from the Church? In the cases where the leadership is telling people ‘pay tithing first’, is there assumed a set way of tithing calculation in your opinion or would someone who pulled out first what was typically viewed as necessary expenses based on average lifestyle calculations for their community and then calculated increase to pay 10% on be told they were not paying enough tithing and they would have to change in the future if they wanted assistance? In what cases, if any have you (bishops and former bishops) told people they are not paying enough tithing (no pressure to answer if you don’t feel appropriate) or been instructed to do so? If they haven’t paid tithing for at least a month, is there instruction they have to pay ‘back tithing’ or tithing for the current’s month income before getting help? Just commit?
Calm Posted January 17, 2022 Posted January 17, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, Tacenda said: So IMO, it's taking from the US citizens by being tax exempt if they aren't providing help to those in need. The US doesn’t exempt churches because the government sees religion as providing charity for others. It exempts because of religious freedom…the government is not to influence what churches teach iow. Now not everyone sees it this way, that religious freedom should be a fundamental right no matter what is taught or they want to define religion to not include what others see as religion, but the US is generally pretty careful in my opinion…though they have blown it at times (not been cautious enough). Edited January 17, 2022 by Calm 2
Popular Post bsjkki Posted January 17, 2022 Popular Post Posted January 17, 2022 1 hour ago, Tacenda said: So IMO, it's taking from the US citizens by being tax exempt if they aren't providing help to those in need. I don't understand this thinking. I don't care how other church's use their funds. I'm happy they don't pay taxes to the government. It is their money not being confiscated. I don't view funds not given to the government as cheating others. 5
Calm Posted January 17, 2022 Posted January 17, 2022 (edited) Tacenda, does it help to think of churches’ ‘job’ in the United States is to provide opportunities for religious expression as opposed to being helpful to people? Not one size fits all, but lots of different venues that have different standards/performances so to speak. Now think of how the government can force a school to teach or not teach something to a great extent. Schools are intended to provide a consistent enough background that education level starts at a minimum standard. Do you want the government to have that ability with religion? To require a set of minimum teachings and not allow others just because enough currently in government don’t see it as appropriate to teach anywhere? Edited January 17, 2022 by Calm 4
Tacenda Posted January 17, 2022 Posted January 17, 2022 11 minutes ago, Calm said: Tacenda, does it help to think of churches’ ‘job’ in the United States is to provide opportunities for religious expression as opposed to being helpful to people? Now think of how the government can force a school to teach or not teach something to a great extent. Do you want the government to have that ability with religion? First question: Some religions have done harm when using their religious freedoms, so this is a tough one. And I would love religions that have the main goal of being helpful v. harmful. Second question: Not all the time, but I believe religions that are harmful shouldn't have free reign and should get their tax exemption pulled if they are. Scientology being one of them.
Popular Post bsjkki Posted January 17, 2022 Popular Post Posted January 17, 2022 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Tacenda said: First question: Some religions have done harm when using their religious freedoms, so this is a tough one. And I would love religions that have the main goal of being helpful v. harmful. Second question: Not all the time, but I believe religions that are harmful shouldn't have free reign and should get their tax exemption pulled if they are. Scientology being one of them. IMO, this is a bit scary. Who is the arbiter of harm? I know a lot of people who would want to shut the church down completely if they had the power. We live in a free society and as long as a church is breaking no laws, the government should leave them alone. The mission of the church is not to be 'helpful.' We are not a charity organization. We help people, yes. We are taught to be a charitable people who willingly help others. But, the ultimate mission of the church is to teach and preach and bring people to Christ. In addition, a big mission of our church is temple work. Yes, we help feed the poor but I'm not sure you understand the difference between a charity and and a church. Edited January 17, 2022 by bsjkki 7
Calm Posted January 17, 2022 Posted January 17, 2022 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Second question: Not all the time, but I believe religions that are harmful shouldn't have free reign and should get their tax exemption pulled if they are. Scientology being one of them. So just to be clear, you want the laws changed to allow more restrictions on religions? How would you suggest they protect religions from over regulation? Assuming you believe that there are some teachings that can be beneficial or neutral and therefore should be allowed? How should what is harmful be defined and who gets to do the defining? For example, say there are influencers of the government who decide that teaching humans are children of God is ridiculous because they believe either there is no god and it is just manipulative to teach it or God is so far above humans it is blasphemy to teach that connection (using a neutral teaching that still is reasonable to see as harmful in some way to avoid baggage). The two groups form a coalition and have enough political and social influence somehow they have enough backers to make a law that it is illegal to teach “man is a child of god” in any fashion (symbolically or literal or whatever) because the members of the group see it as harmful either to a realistic self perception or they believe that such a belief may damn someone to hell (blasphemy). Should a church that teaches some form of that idea have the right to take it to the Supreme Court to declare the law unconstitutional or not? At what point should protection for teachings be given or withheld? (sorry if you feel like you are being grilled, I am interested in seeing how people reason their opinions and you are often willing to share, so I ask you a lot; reading what you say helps me examine my own ways of reasonings). Edited January 17, 2022 by Calm 3
kimpearson Posted January 17, 2022 Posted January 17, 2022 I don't really care about the laws, I would just like to know what the 100 billion plus is for. Does God really want 100 billion in the bank doing nothing more than collecting interest. How does that align with any of the teachings of Jesus Christ in any of our scriptures. Remember the parable for Luke 12 about gathering riches in bigger and bigger amounts for some future purpose that will likely never be realized (there was no way the rich man could ever use up all the wealth he had accumulated): 16 And he spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully: 17 And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to abestow my fruits? 18 And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods. 19 And I will say to my soul, aSoul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, beat, drink, and be merry. 20 But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy asoul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided? 21 So is he that layeth up atreasure for bhimself, and is not rich toward God.
Popular Post bsjkki Posted January 17, 2022 Popular Post Posted January 17, 2022 6 minutes ago, kimpearson said: I don't really care about the laws, I would just like to know what the 100 billion plus is for. Does God really want 100 billion in the bank doing nothing more than collecting interest. Why? Did you ask him? Personally, I can think of a few reasons but don’t really care. What would be an acceptable answer to you? 5
kimpearson Posted January 17, 2022 Posted January 17, 2022 2 hours ago, bsjkki said: Why? Did you ask him? Personally, I can think of a few reasons but don’t really care. What would be an acceptable answer to you? Why with all the discussion of using talents, taking care of the poor and the revelation on tithing be used to build the kingdom of God (2 For the building of mine ahouse, and for the laying of the foundation of Zion and for the priesthood, and for the debts of the Presidency of my Church) would the Church need 100 billion? Are you saying this is a silly question to ask? Why don't you care? Any explanation would be fine with me as we currently have no explanation. I realize you might have the belief that it is a commandment from God and that is all I need to know or that is the prophets worry not mine? That is your right. Just like it is my right to wonder why. I would love to hear your thoughts on what a few reasons might be because I can't come up with one.
bsjkki Posted January 17, 2022 Posted January 17, 2022 27 minutes ago, kimpearson said: Why with all the discussion of using talents, taking care of the poor and the revelation on tithing be used to build the kingdom of God (2 For the building of mine ahouse, and for the laying of the foundation of Zion and for the priesthood, and for the debts of the Presidency of my Church) would the Church need 100 billion? Are you saying this is a silly question to ask? Why don't you care? Any explanation would be fine with me as we currently have no explanation. I realize you might have the belief that it is a commandment from God and that is all I need to know or that is the prophets worry not mine? That is your right. Just like it is my right to wonder why. I would love to hear your thoughts on what a few reasons might be because I can't come up with one. This is what we know. https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/first-presidency-statement-church-finances We take seriously the responsibility to care for the tithes and donations received from members. The vast majority of these funds are used immediately to meet the needs of the growing Church including more meetinghouses, temples, education, humanitarian work and missionary efforts throughout the world. Over many years, a portion is methodically safeguarded through wise financial management and the building of a prudent reserve for the future. This is a sound doctrinal and financial principle taught by the Savior in the Parable of the Talents and lived by the Church and its members. All Church funds exist for no other reason than to support the Church’s divinely appointed mission. Claims being currently circulated are based on a narrow perspective and limited information. The Church complies with all applicable law governing our donations, investments, taxes, and reserves. We continue to welcome the opportunity to work with officials to address questions they may have. Who knows? In the coming years, this fund may insure the church’s financial survival. 4
Amulek Posted January 17, 2022 Posted January 17, 2022 17 hours ago, Tacenda said: But if it's true that the Ensign Peak hasn't donated and according to the tax laws it needed to, in order to be tax exempt, it should be. Not that I think it will make a difference, but no - it is not true that Ensign Peak has done (for failed to do) anything which would jeopardize its tax exempt status. 1
Teancum Posted January 17, 2022 Posted January 17, 2022 18 hours ago, Calm said: Tacenda, do you really believe that Ensign Peak is doing something illegal, I am not Tacenda but would like to answer. First answer is no not likely. But if they fund is set up under certain IRS rules for non for profits a certain % of the fund assets are supposed to be applied to charitable purposes on an annual basis to remain tax exempt. Based on what I know this has not happened unless somehow the amount paid to bail out Beneficial Life and to build the mall qualified. 18 hours ago, Calm said: or do you think the Church is exploiting a legal loophole It seems to me that they are exploiting a legal loophole to their tremendous benefit. Whether people conclude if that is good or bad will vary. 18 hours ago, Calm said: to do something immoral? Or something else? Personally I think it is immoral for the Church to accumulate such massive wealth on the backs of so many of its members who struggle to get by as well as the great needs in the world. These funds, on top of the real estate and other assets the church has are simply massive. I readily state often that in the modern world I have no problem with a large world wide church accumulating assets to protect itself in a down turn. 3 or maybe 4 times annual operating costs seems reasonable, 15 to 20 times seems immoral.
Teancum Posted January 17, 2022 Posted January 17, 2022 17 hours ago, mrmarklin said: Tacenda, the church doesn’t have to obey US law as a normal charity. It can donate some, none, or all of its money. Church’s are exceptions to the 501c3 rules. Uhhh yes it does...... It just does not have to file a Form 990 or an audited financial statement. Which maybe can allow it to do whatever it wants. Hmmm
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 17, 2022 Posted January 17, 2022 1 hour ago, Teancum said: I readily state often that in the modern world I have no problem with a large world wide church accumulating assets to protect itself in a down turn. 3 or maybe 4 times annual operating costs seems reasonable, 15 to 20 times seems immoral. So you've seen the future and know how many downturns we can expect and the length of each? 3
bsjkki Posted January 17, 2022 Posted January 17, 2022 6 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: So you've seen the future and know how many downturns we can expect and the length of each? After living through the last few years, I think we should expect the unexpected. 😝 4
Tacenda Posted January 17, 2022 Posted January 17, 2022 20 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: So you've seen the future and know how many downturns we can expect and the length of each? I picture a domino affect and the church being able to sustain those that are suffering before it's too late. The church can do more to help countries that are suffering now rather than wait, which they do or they're hands are tied, but not always. Did you happen to see the post I made on this thread about the third world country with members that were starving. How does that happen? Why was a foundation created for these members specifically at the beginning, by other members? Why was the church not helping these people adequately? Why is the church waiting for a rainy day? What if that rainy day is today? But I am glad they are there for many things, such as the recent Tsunami in Tonga. I saw on the news that they are available to help if needs be. And in the press release said the donations into the humanitarian fund will allow it to. So really nothing from Ensign Peak yet, that I know of. But just glad it's there. I have a love/hate relationship with the church's finances.
Recommended Posts