Wealthy Mormon Publicly Leaves the LDS Church

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Quote

How else to bring public attention to the giant donation he just made?

Pathetic really.

Actually a smart move.  Bound to get him a lot of new business from the LGBTQI community.

I see virtually no downside for Mr. Green to do what he did.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Which explains his dewey, youthful complexion.

[Stormin' Mormon]

44 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Well at least he pledges to give away 90% of his wealth.  That is much better than the LDS Church's commitment to  the poor and weary.

The pledge gives him the leeway to wait until after death to follow through with that commitment, to safely wait until he's absolutely sure he won't need it any longer.  The Church, as an organization, is immortal.  It's not going to die, not going to experience a time when the resources are no longer needed, and therefore can't give away 90% of its wealth after its death.

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Those are words. If he gave it away today I would be incredibly impressed. 

I wouldn't.  The guy is 44.  He could spend the next 40 years of his life growing and investing his current wealth, while also distributing some of it to worthwhile endeavors over time.  In the end he could have distributed far more to worthy causes than if he just liquidated his wealth and gave 90% of it away all at once.

As it happens, I suspect this is what he intends to do.  And it's a smart move.  Over time his wealth can create some really good things for a lot of people.

But then, that's what the Church is doing, too.  And without the possibility of decades of billionaire profligacy.

Thanks,

-Smac

[BRMC]

3 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

The pledge gives him the leeway to wait until after death to follow through with that commitment, to safely wait until he's absolutely sure he won't need it any longer.  The Church, as an organization, is immortal.  It's not going to die, not going to experience a time when the resources are no longer needed, and therefore can't give away 90% of its wealth after its death.

Maybe the Church should issue an announcement saying they admire his devotion to charity, and due to his example they pledge to give away 90% of the Church's wealth when it dies, too?

[Teancum]

20 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Those are words. If he gave it away today I would be incredibly impressed. 

Ok.  

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

4. I think his criticism of the Church's finances is . . . interesting.  He has amassed for himself a fortune worth billions, and also "worries about the faith’s transparency around its history and finances," but I don't see much in the way of financial "transparency" from him.  So I guess "transparent financials for thee, but not for me" is the way of things.

Two problems with your argument on this issue: 1) his company is publicly traded, is subject to audit and issues detailed financial statements and disclosures both quarterly and annually; and 2), there is no equivalence between the moral obligation on the transparency of finances of an individual and the finances of an ecclesiastical organization with millions of members.

[katherine the great]

19 minutes ago, Freedom said:

not sure how this can be stopped. and why no billionaires. What about multi millionaires? why is it their fault that they created critical services such as amazon, microsoft or aerosol that we cannot seem to love without.  i do not begrudge them their wealth, i do take issue with the media giving his voice more statute than yours. his wealth does not give him any moral or academic status. 

I cannot find any moral justification for a single individual to have a billion plus dollars. They should give most of it it away (and give and give and give and give). Have you noticed the pattern of these Uber wealthy men whose wives and mothers set up foundations to share the wealth? In my opinion that’s how it should be done. That is the only moral use of those types of funds. That’s my opinion. To be frank, I am no fan of the church’s hundred billion (give or take) dollar rainy day fund. Not a fan but at least the church does give away a considerable amount of wealth. 

[kimpearson]

Has it occurred to any of you that Mr. Green has some legitimate points that any person who does not believe in the Church's unique truths would find reasonable.

Queer members of the Church are almost universally scarred and hurt by current teaching of the Church.  That is a fact as I have personally listened to the stories of thousands of queer members and former members.  Even those trying to follow the Church's teachings almost always suffer from poor self image and self worth and struggle to find a place of comfort in the Church.

The Church has over $150 billion dollars in investment funds, land and property (excluding buildings used for Church purposes).  These investments have sat in those funds and property for over 20 years and nothing has ever  been withdrawn for any humanitarian or religious purpose.  It appears that excess tithing funds go into these accounts each year and the funds continue to grow.  No purpose has ever been given as to what these funds are for.

Now the faithful feel there is no issue with either of these facts but you all got to be kidding me if you don't see how a non believer could feel there are some major problems here.  Please quit judging others through your very narrow Church viewpoint.  Give them the grace and understanding to see how this doesn't look good to 99.9% of the world.

[Freedom]

1 minute ago, katherine the great said:

I cannot find any moral justification for a single individual to have a billion plus dollars. They should give most of it it away (and give and give and give and give). Have you noticed the pattern of these Uber wealthy men whose wives and mothers set up foundations to share the wealth? In my opinion that’s how it should be done. That is the only moral use of those types of funds. That’s my opinion. To be frank, I am no fan of the church’s hundred billion (give or take) dollar rainy day fund. Not a fan but at least the church does give away a considerable amount of wealth. 

many of them do give it away but the vast majority is tied up in assets.  Bill Gates for example (setting his reprehensible moral values aside) once stated that it is not possible to require more than $30,000,000/year. It just is not possible to spend it. Him living off of $10,000,000 and giving the rest away does not have any affect on his lifestyle. He may be worth billions on paper, but he does not have access to this wealth. I understand your point but then how much is too much? Is $500,000/year too much? How much should a person live off of. The few very wealthy people that I know funnel millions into charities. 

It is easy to say that they should give the money away but I have found that the more money a person makes, the more they feel they need. Is an annul trip to Europe extravagant if that money could have been spend feeding a village for a year? I am not proposing I have an answer, but I due stand firm in stating that a persons wealth has no bearing on the validity of their opinions. 

[katherine the great]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

38 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

 

I wouldn't.  The guy is 44.  He could spend the next 40 years of his life growing and investing his current wealth, while also distributing some of it to worthwhile endeavors over time.  In the end he could have distributed far more to worthy causes than if he just liquidated his wealth and gave 90% of it away all at once

Well I might not be around to observe that so I can’t very well be impressed can I?

[katherine the great]

5 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

Has it occurred to any of you that Mr. Green has some legitimate points that any person who does not believe in the Church's unique truths would find reasonable.

Yes. I think it has probably occurred to several of us. Are you painting us all with the same broad stroke?

[JustAnAustralian]

He hasn't considered himself a member for over a decade (I.e before 2011). If he wanted to make a stand on  LGBT rights why didn't he officially leave the church in 2015? Would have been a great time.

[Teancum]

32 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

The pledge gives him the leeway to wait until after death to follow through with that commitment, to safely wait until he's absolutely sure he won't need it any longer.  The Church, as an organization, is immortal.  It's not going to die, not going to experience a time when the resources are no longer needed, and therefore can't give away 90% of its wealth after its death.

THe LDS Church has amassed a huge fortune both in stocks and other investments as well as land and property.  Based in its annual income and its enormous wealth, the % the Church that claims to be the CHurch of Jesus is a paltry amount. Resources are fine.  The Church should have them since its revenue source can dry up.  But it seems to me that its reserve fund is tremendously excessive.

[katherine the great]

5 minutes ago, Freedom said:

I due stand firm in stating that a persons wealth has no bearing on the validity of their opinions. 

 Well I didn’t mean to imply that wealth and opinion are related. I know wealthy people who are as stupid as the day is long and some poor people who are brilliant. I just find it ironic to see a billionaire criticizing the church for the management of its wealth. Virtue- signaling aside. 

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

He hasn't considered himself a member for over a decade (I.e before 2011). If he wanted to make a stand on  LGBT rights why didn't he officially leave the church in 2015? Would have been a great time.

Speaking as someone who effectively left the church years ago, but only recently decided to go through the resignation process, it is a deeply personal decision to finally sever those ties.  One might argue that his noisy exit invalidates it being a personal decision in this case, but I think it comes down to reaching the point where it matters to the individual to no longer be associated with an organization, certain actions of which they may find objectionable.  For all we know, something happened behind the scenes for him that finally put him over the edge.  Regardless, attacking him on his timing serves little use but to look like deflection from his valid concerns.

[Freedom]

1 minute ago, katherine the great said:

 Well I didn’t mean to imply that wealth and opinion are related. I know wealthy people who are as stupid as the day is long and some poor people who are brilliant. I just find it ironic to see a billionaire criticizing the church for the management of its wealth. Virtue- signaling aside. 

I totally get your point and agree. 

[BRMC]

14 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

Has it occurred to any of you that Mr. Green has some legitimate points that any person who does not believe in the Church's unique truths would find reasonable.

Ok, but what difference does that make?   Why would you subject yourself to the perceived Church issues if you didn't believe the Church's unique truths?   It seems the issue mostly lies with people who DON'T believe them yet want to force change for the people that for the most part don't want the change because they do believe those truths.
 

Quote

 

The Church has over $150 billion dollars in investment funds, land and property (excluding buildings used for Church purposes).  These investments have sat in those funds and property for over 20 years and nothing has ever  been withdrawn for any humanitarian or religious purpose.  It appears that excess tithing funds go into these accounts each year and the funds continue to grow.  No purpose has ever been given as to what these funds are for.

Now the faithful feel there is no issue with either of these facts but you all got to be kidding me if you don't see how a non believer could feel there are some major problems here.  Please quit judging others through your very narrow Church viewpoint.  Give them the grace and understanding to see how this doesn't look good to 99.9% of the world.

 

Not to sound crass, but "so what"?   There are many organizations that I don't agree with how they are managing their money.  I don't give money to those organizations.  

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

And unlike him, the Church's wealth is held in trust, and used to benefit the members and the rest of the world.  

I don't believe this is accurate. My understanding is that Ensign Peak Advisors has spent exactly $0.00 to do anything to benefit the member or the rest of the world. It accumulates money, and occasionally builds malls and bails out insurance companies. That's it.

Yes, the Church does use some of its annual income for charitable purposes. But it appears its biggest charitable donations are to Ensign Peak Advisors, which does nothing but hoard the money.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

There is a strong bit of irony here.  If Mr. Green had divested himself of his billions now, then he would be in a better position to criticize the Church's retention and long-term management of its funds.  Instead, his plan seems to be not a whole lot different from what the Church is doing: managing accumulated wealth with the long-term goal of it going toward worthy causes.

My understanding is that the church doesn't have any articulated "long-term goal of it going to worthy causes." That is why the managers at EPA jokingly say it is being saved until Jesus comes back.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

  So why is it okay for him to do this with his money (all the while living the life of a literal billionaire), but awful and terrible when the Church does it?

Green's plan is to give away 90% of his fortune by the time he dies. The Church's plan is to invest 15% of its tithing revenue into Ensign Peak Advisors and use whatever's left to run the Church and support charitable causes. The Church and Jeff Green have two fundamentally different plans.

Ultimately, the Church is free to do what it wants with its money. Of course. But by the same token it is Green's right to call a spade a spade and publicly disassociate from the Church for the reason he cites.  

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

7. Given the number of news items, I suspect this "story," such as it is, was an orchestrated PR event.  

A billionaire joining the Church would be inherently newsworthy. A billionaire leaving the church is inherently newsworthy. People are interested in this kind of thing.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, I hope Mr. Green has a change of heart.  

I hope members who haven't resigned yet have a change of heart.

 

Edited December 22, 2021 by Analytics

[Navidad]

I wonder what it is exactly about the LDS church that makes this kind of thing newsworthy?????? I have never in my 71 years read a headline that this or that person left the Mennonite, Catholic, Pentecostal, Jewish, or Baha'i faith! People leave, switch, and join churches thousands of times every day! Leaving one group in a faith tradition for another in the same tradition is not converting. It is migrating. Birds, butterflies, and people migrate all the time. OK, so billionaires aren't on every corner, so maybe that makes it different. However, on this forum when someone posts about someone else leaving the LDS church, it is a big deal! Not sure I will ever understand that. My wife and I never decided to join. That doesn't seem to be a big deal to very many people, not even in our own ward. Fascinating stuff!

Edited December 22, 2021 by Navidad

[why me]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

I agree, which is why I find it so odd that I'm seeing this story picked up and shared by multiple news sources across the country.  

It is not surprising at all. It is part of the woke culture. Plus, anything that has to do with the topic gets major press. So, a rich man leaves a church over his church's stance about gay rights. Religion is expected to go with the flow.

[why me]

8 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I wonder what it is exactly about the LDS church that makes this kind of thing newsworthy?????? I have never in my 71 years read a headline that this or that person left the Mennonite, Catholic, Pentecostal, Jewish, or Baha'i faith! People leave, switch, and join churches thousands of times every day! Leaving one group in a faith tradition for another in the same tradition is not converting. It is migrating. Birds, butterflies, and people migrate all the time. OK, so billionaires aren't on every corner, so maybe that makes it different. However, on this forum when someone posts about someone else leaving the LDS church, it is a big deal! Not sure I will ever understand that. My wife and I never decided to join. That doesn't seem to be a big deal to very many people, not even in our own ward. Fascinating stuff!

You left out Islam. It would be interesting to have the news media ask Ihan Omar about Islam and gay rights and what exactly is her stance about her faith in regards to Lgbt rights. But only silence from the media and from her.

[why me]

31 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

 Well I didn’t mean to imply that wealth and opinion are related. I know wealthy people who are as stupid as the day is long and some poor people who are brilliant. I just find it ironic to see a billionaire criticizing the church for the management of its wealth. Virtue- signaling aside. 

I think that he considered it to be to his advantage to leave for the reason that he gave, knowing that it may make news in the media and make him a hero. Someone notified the media about it. And I am almost sure that it was him.

[ttribe]

10 minutes ago, why me said:

It is not surprising at all. It is part of the woke culture. Plus, anything that has to do with the topic gets major press. So, a rich man leaves a church over his church's stance about gay rights. Religion is expected to go with the flow.

 

5 minutes ago, why me said:

You left out Islam. It would be interesting to have the news media ask Ihan Omar about Islam and gay rights and what exactly is her stance about her faith in regards to Lgbt rights. But only silence from the media and from her.

How is it you manage to politicize, well, everything?

[Daniel2]

50 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Do you allow the leaders of the Church the same consideration?  That they are "doing what they believe is right, and letting the consequence follow"?

Thanks,

-Smac

Do I "allow" the leaders of the Church the same consideration?  Strikes me as a strange question, though it sounds as you may be suggesting I'm employing a double standard, which I don't believe I am. 

In my response to JLHPROF, I suppose you could say that I certainly "allowed" him the right to his view, as I began my response by saying, "You may find it pathetic; others find it inspiring."  In other words, I didn't assert he was wrong and I was right--I validated that he may feel one way, and others may feel differently.

But here are my thoughts in trying to answer your question:

a) Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and everyone is certainly entitled to spend the money which is their legal property or over which they have legal stewardship as they see fit, whether I "allow" it or not.

b) Everyone is allowed to express their own opinions (whether in agreement or disagreement) about how they, themselves; or others; or organizations (such as churches) spend their money, as we're all entitled to freedom of speech.  Individuals such as Mr. Green are not above criticism for how they decide to utilize their wealth (as demonstrated in this thread); he is likely also going to be a subject of acclaim.  In similar fashion, churches such as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not above criticism for how they decide to utilize their wealth; they are likely also going to be the subject of acclaim.

c) As far as my own views are concerned, my expectations of and views about how an individual may choose to use their means and/or money may be different than how any organization representing itself as God's only True Church, while simultaneously proclaiming to abide by a specific set of principles that guide it's actions.  And as you certainly well know, Smac, in the United States, the government and it's laws absolutely treat individuals and churches differently when it comes to money, as well.

d)  Yes, I believe LDS Church leaders believe they "are doing what is right," and the consequences have followed, for good and ill. I acknowledge they have done much good and continue to do so.  Were I in that type of a position with that amount of wealth within a similar organization, I believe I would be encouraging my peers to do more, as well as be more transparent about our financials (my Faith today, the Unitarian Universalist Association, operates with full financial transparency with it's members, including both sharing the annual fundraising numbers, budget, expenses, and clergy salaries with it's membership and allowing them a say through an annual vote in how funds are used.  I find this much more fiscally and morally responsible, rather than how the LDS church does).

Hope that answered your questions.

Best,

Daniel2