The Church as the 5th Largest Private Landholder in U.S.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The last historically high market return was in January of this year — meaning that, going back to the beginning, a recovery has followed each and every downturn. 
 

The fact that you choose now to be fatalistic about the long-term health and survival of the market and appear to blithely dismiss such a catastrophe as not worth worrying about is what strikes me as insane. 

I didn’t say it wasn’t worth worrying about. I said it is unsustainable for it to continue indefinitely.

This comes across as “Babylon won’t fail, it has always recovered so far!”

[Analytics]

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And again, the nature and beneficiaries and usages of that wealth need to be addressed.  Neither the Brethren nor anyone else are enriching themselves via the Church and its "wealth."  I find that to be a very significant consideration, worth far more of an assessment than "Sure."

Exactly. The usage matters. They use their wealth for essentially nothing  other than the acquisition of more wealth. That is a significant consideration, too.

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Dan Peterson makes a rather trenchant point here:

I note with interest (pun not entirely unintentional) the figure that has been bandied about by the “whistleblower” and his anti-Mormon activist brother and various controversialists:  If I’m not mistaken, they say that the Church takes in approximately seven billion dollars annually in tithing, and that it spends six billion of those dollars on temples and chapels and humanitarian aid and educational subsidies and the like, while putting one billion dollars aside each year for a “rainy day” fund.

By my calculation, that has the Church saving or investing just slightly less than 14.3% of its annual income....

This analysis is incompetent to the level of dishonesty. The Church's income is about $7 billion in tithing, and conservatively, another $7 billion in investment income. 

When you put its entire income into the annual income category, the Church is saving or investing slightly over 57.14% of its annual income.

Given that it uses most of its income to purchase for-profit businesses, why shouldn't it be taxed like a for-profit business?

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That perpetuation of the Church's existence and function is essential.  The Church will continue to exist next year, and the year after that, and the year after that, because it is spending the bulk of its income, apparently around $6 billion dollars, "on temples and chapels and humanitarian aid and educational subsidies and the like," and investing 14.3% of its income.

No, it is spending the bulk of its income on the purchase of stocks, farms, commercial real estate, and shopping malls. It spends the minority of its total income on religious things.

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If you as an individual were to not spend any resources on yourself and your family, and instead donated 100% of your means and property to others, that would be admirable in a sense.  But you would then be without food, clothing, shelter, and other necessaries.  The chances of you being able to maintain that 100% level of donations over any appreciable term would be, essentially, zero.

This analogy has nothing to do with the Church's situation. For one thing, I pay taxes on my income. The Church does not. For another thing, the Church can exist and generate income into perpetuity. My productive days are limited, and I need to save money for when I can no longer work.

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So the question is really more one of degree.  How much should the Church donate to "philanthropic/humanitarian purposes" today compared to how much it should use to grow and strengthen its financial health for the long term.

This is a common question that all churches and non-profits grapple with. Such organizations hire consultants to help them deal with these issues. People write books about it. Business schools teach courses about it.

I've quoted at length over and over from authoritative sources on best practices in this sphere.

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Meanwhile, the article also discusses various other American schools who have received donations from Canadians, including Harvard (endowment: $53 billion), Stanford (endowment: $37 billion), Brown (endowment: $7 billion), Columbia (endowment: $14 billion), Cornell (endowment: $10 billion), Dartmouth (endowment: $8 billion), Princeton (endowment: $37 billion), Pennsylvania (endowment: $20 billion), Yale (endowment: $42 billion), Berkeley (endowment: $6.8 billion), Loma Linda University ($461 million), Yeshiva University (endowment: $814 million).

No mention of this guy getting all hot and bothered by Canadian dollars being donated to these institutions, which dollars also "{don't} do anything to alleviate the financial strain of provincial and federal governments in Canada."

No mention of you, who started that thread, getting hot and bothered by the foregoing endowments, either.  I find that . . . interesting.

According to Harvard's website:

"As a general rule, Harvard targets an annual endowment payout rate of 5.0 to 5.5% of market value.... 

"Distributions from Harvard’s endowment provide a critical source of funding for the University. The endowment distributed $2.1 billion in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2022 contributing over a third of Harvard’s total operating revenue in that year. The overwhelming majority of the funds that make up Harvard’s endowment are donor directed to specific programs, departments, or purposes (dedicated scholarships, named professorships, etc.), and must be spent in accordance with terms set forth by the donor. Payout from these funds can only be spent in support of the fund’s designated purpose. Unrestricted funds, which account for less than 20 percent of Harvard’s endowment, are more flexible in nature and are critical in supporting structural operating expenses and transformative, strategic initiatives."

https://finance.harvard.edu/endowment

Harvard's endowment is, in fact, an endowment. They use most of its annual earnings to help fund the university.

In contrast, the Church's hoard of wealth is not an endowment.  They don't use any of its annual earnings for any religious or charitable purpose whatsoever. 

Do you see the difference?

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And then there was our December 2021 discussion of Jeff Green, the billionaire and former member of the Church who publicly faulted it for doing with its wealth what he is doing with his.  From my comment:

No words of opprobrium from you for Mr. Green, either.  To the contrary, you defended him:

"90% of his fortune by the time he dies."  Meanwhile, however, he will get to enjoy being - to use phrasing you seem to only reserve for the Church - "obscenely wealthy."  And you have no problem with that.  You have no problem with him retaining all that obscene wealth rather than distributing it now.  

Meanwhile, in 2021 Green was paid $838 million for his job of CEO of TradeDesk, making him "the highest-paid CEO across the 358 firms in the S&P 500."  Boy, imagine if he gave away 90% of that wealth now, or even all of it (he already has a few billion in the bank, after all).  

He has also started the Jeff T. Green Family Foundation, which describes itself as follows:

I thought this was admirable:

Every single dollar spent by this foundation could instead be donated now.  To buy food for starving orphans, wheelchairs for paraplegics in developing countries, vaccines, you name it.

Here, though, Green's foundation seems to have a longer-term "to teach a man to fish is better than giving the man a fish" approach.  I very much admire that.

Doing something worthwhile with massive wealth is an incredibly difficult problem. I salute Green for putting together a plan.

In contrast, the Church doesn't have a plan. They hoard money for the second coming. That's it.

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I guess long-term planning and philanthropic efforts are yet another "It's only bad when the Mormons do it" or "'That's different because shut up,' he explained" kind of things.

It bears repeating that the Church doesn't have a plan for the money it hoards.

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It bears repeated emphasis that nobody - no biological person - is becoming wealthy, let alone "obscenely" so, by accessing the Church's coffers.

To my knowledge, nobody disputes this. The fact that you think it bears repeating indicates you don't understand the criticisms.

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I also note that unlike Mr. Greene the Church is situated differently because it intends to exist in perpetuity.

Including its ability to generate income into perpetuity. That's why private individuals need to save a lot of money for their unproductive years, and why best practices for churches and non-profits are to limit their rainy day funds to about a year's worth of annual expenditures. 

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

From this 2020 Deseret News article:

The article: "Nearly $1 billion {per year} in combined humanitarian and welfare aid."

Here is the Church's report where this came from:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/english/charities/pdf/2021/PD60013504-CaringForThoseInNeed-Annual-Report-2021-mobile-eng.pdf?lang=eng&cid=email-CCD_EM_LTG_0522_2021AnnualReport_CTA&mkt_tok=NTc4LVRUWC04NzQAAAGEXcUD784BnnW6fv3QZiZDHbWpXX4SdUm-3Oigj5iwOfwvFxeXSHL4ZByW4SSVbLnFgmupKU-xLlcKqcRJfc2wxc-z1AX7HYiiR-npd0jE7A

According to page 7 of that report, the $906 million consists of:

• Fast-Offering assistance
• Bishops' orders for goods
• humanitarian projects
• Donated commodities
• Donated clothing
• Church operations

In other words, most of this is part of the $6 billion it spends operating the church, or wasn't considered part of the church's tithing or investment income in the first place.

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Exactly. The usage matters. They use their wealth for essentially nothing  other than the acquisition of more wealth. That is a significant consideration, too.

This analysis is incompetent to the level of dishonesty. The Church's income is about $7 billion in tithing, and conservatively, another $7 billion in investment income. 

When you put its entire income into the annual income category, the Church is saving or investing slightly over 57.14% of its annual income.

Given that it uses most of its income to purchase for-profit businesses, why shouldn't it be taxed like a for-profit business?

No, it is spending the bulk of its income on the purchase of stocks, farms, commercial real estate, and shopping malls. It spends the minority of its total income on religious things.

This analogy has nothing to do with the Church's situation. For one thing, I pay taxes on my income. The Church does not. For another thing, the Church can exist and generate income into perpetuity. My productive days are limited, and I need to save money for when I can no longer work.

This is a common question that all churches and non-profits grapple with. Such organizations hire consultants to help them deal with these issues. People write books about it. Business schools teach courses about it.

I've quoted at length over and over from authoritative sources on best practices in this sphere.

According to Harvard's website:

"As a general rule, Harvard targets an annual endowment payout rate of 5.0 to 5.5% of market value.... 

"Distributions from Harvard’s endowment provide a critical source of funding for the University. The endowment distributed $2.1 billion in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2022 contributing over a third of Harvard’s total operating revenue in that year. The overwhelming majority of the funds that make up Harvard’s endowment are donor directed to specific programs, departments, or purposes (dedicated scholarships, named professorships, etc.), and must be spent in accordance with terms set forth by the donor. Payout from these funds can only be spent in support of the fund’s designated purpose. Unrestricted funds, which account for less than 20 percent of Harvard’s endowment, are more flexible in nature and are critical in supporting structural operating expenses and transformative, strategic initiatives."

https://finance.harvard.edu/endowment

Harvard's endowment is, in fact, an endowment. They use most of its annual earnings to help fund the university.

In contrast, the Church's hoard of wealth is not an endowment.  They don't use any of its annual earnings for any religious or charitable purpose whatsoever. 

Do you see the difference?

Doing something worthwhile with massive wealth is an incredibly difficult problem. I salute Green for putting together a plan.

In contrast, the Church doesn't have a plan. They hoard money for the second coming. That's it.

It bears repeating that the Church doesn't have a plan for the money it hoards.

To my knowledge, nobody disputes this. The fact that you think it bears repeating indicates you don't understand the criticisms.

Including its ability to generate income into perpetuity. That's why private individuals need to save a lot of money for their unproductive years, and why best practices for churches and non-profits are to limit their rainy day funds to about a year's worth of annual expenditures. 

Here is the Church's report where this came from:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/english/charities/pdf/2021/PD60013504-CaringForThoseInNeed-Annual-Report-2021-mobile-eng.pdf?lang=eng&cid=email-CCD_EM_LTG_0522_2021AnnualReport_CTA&mkt_tok=NTc4LVRUWC04NzQAAAGEXcUD784BnnW6fv3QZiZDHbWpXX4SdUm-3Oigj5iwOfwvFxeXSHL4ZByW4SSVbLnFgmupKU-xLlcKqcRJfc2wxc-z1AX7HYiiR-npd0jE7A

According to page 7 of that report, the $906 million consists of:

• Fast-Offering assistance
• Bishops' orders for goods
• humanitarian projects
• Donated commodities
• Donated clothing
• Church operations

In other words, most of this is part of the $6 billion it spends operating the church, or wasn't considered part of the church's tithing or investment income in the first place.

Yes, I think the members' donations are more charitable than the church's financial arm donations that don't seem to exist, it's just a money making machine relying on the backs of members donations. 

I get that it's a feeling of security knowing the church has it's wealth, but how do members ever receive a break? Sure they have a beautiful place to worship or serve the dead in the temples, but is that all? I am glad that the church has great resources in order to provide ways for materials and food to be distributed for those in need.

The second coming won't even need the $ will it? I know I'm often naive about these things, but is there even money being exchanged in the second coming, do we even know what will happen?

 

[gav]

30 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This comes across as “Babylon won’t fail, it has always recovered so far!”

In agreement with the above sentiments: Recovery isn't guaranteed especially since a lot of this "growth" has been funded by "helicopter dollars" and "Babylon" is founded on a glass foundation above a hole 30+ trillion deep.

Add to that the glass already cracking under inflation, recession, energy stresses, food insecurity, deglobalisation, political polarisation, dedollarization, possible nuclear conflict in Europe. This doesn't look like the next collapse, when it comes, will be recoverable. The system has become too complex and interdependent with way too many stresses on many of those dependencies.

When complex systems whether biological, financial or other collapse they can't bounce back quickly because the conditions upon which they were built take time to recover or rebuild.

Edited December 9, 2022 by gav

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Yes, I think the members' donations are more charitable than the church's financial arm donations that don't seem to exist, it's just a money making machine relying on the backs of members donations. 

I get that it's a feeling of security knowing the church has it's wealth, but how do members ever receive a break? Sure they have a beautiful place to worship or serve the dead in the temples, but is that all? I am glad that the church has great resources in order to provide ways for materials and food to be distributed for those in need.

The second coming won't even need the $ will it? I know I'm often naive about these things, but is there even money being exchanged in the second coming, do we even know what will happen?

 

It is more likely to be spent in preparation.

[gav]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Yes, I think the members' donations are more charitable than the church's financial arm donations that don't seem to exist, it's just a money making machine relying on the backs of members donations. 

I get that it's a feeling of security knowing the church has it's wealth, but how do members ever receive a break? Sure they have a beautiful place to worship or serve the dead in the temples, but is that all? I am glad that the church has great resources in order to provide ways for materials and food to be distributed for those in need.

The second coming won't even need the $ will it? I know I'm often naive about these things, but is there even money being exchanged in the second coming, do we even know what will happen?

 

The second coming is preceded by turmoil and collapse of existing power systems prior to the Lord establishing his own systems of government. It looks to me like it's a transition rather than a magical instantaneous event. A lot of these investments, particularly in land, agricultural production and similar infrastructure makes sense in light of said expected downturns and turmoil... money and other bearer assets will likely be worthless in the deepest trough of that transition.

[Stargazer]

6 minutes ago, Analytics said:

In contrast, the Church doesn't have a plan. They hoard money for the second coming. That's it.

Your speculation, or have you acquired a document from the church that says this?

And what good will money do in the Second Coming?

Assuming that there will be worldwide turmoil that will not even be fully relieved after He comes again, what good will money do? Money in these days is fiat currency that is only of value because people will accept it in exchange for materials and labor. In fact, even gold and silver only has value because someone will exchange it for materials and labor. And in the tribulation will you part with your own valuable possessions (e.g. food and shelter) for valueless paper with pretty printed on it? Or electronic money, like Bitcoin? Heck no, you wouldn't. 

I remember a scene in a 1933 sci-fi novel, When Worlds Collide, when a multi-billionaire shows up in his private airplane and wants to buy passage on a spaceship being built to rescue a few hundred people before another planet collides with and destroys the earth. The billionaire offers several trunks full of paper currency for payment. Those building the ship laugh in his face and send him on his way.

The only truly valuable things in the Second Coming will be, first of all, your testimony of Jesus Christ, enough food to tide you over the shortages, and land able to support the growing of food and rebuilding of civilization afterwards.

Look, if you don't believe, fine, that's your problem. You really shouldn't be criticizing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for how it uses its money. Their money isn't yours. You have no part of it. It's not oppressing you. If you're a former member who wants his money back, I'm sorry, but you're just going to have to suck it up like a man, and admit you were fooled. Nobody's standing in your way of earning your own money and donating it to any cause you might think is better. Or hoard your own cash for whatever reason you feel is appropriate.

[Stormin' Mormon]

I'll repeat what I said a year ago on this topic:

Quote

I get the frustration.  I get that the Church is sitting on a large amount of untapped wealth, a treasure hoard that has the potential to do so much good in the world.  But that potential will remain as long as the church doesn't misspend it on frivolous or unethical things (like enriching the lives of church leaders).  

Let me repeat that: the investments are not USING up the money.  It's still there.  It's still available to be spent on good and admirable and noble things.  

I also said:

Quote

It is an objective fact that the church is not MISUSING this money.  At WORST they are just letting it sit there UNUSED, not misused.  It's not being used to pay for lavish lifestyles of church leaders.  It's just sitting there, waiting for the opportune moment. The question, then, is not one of "good use" vs "bad use;" rather it's a question of "good use now" vs "good use at some indeterminate time in the future."  Either way, those funds WILL be put to good use, this year, or next, or 257 years from now.  Whatever.  But based on how we see the Church spending its money now, I have no doubt that those funds will be used (eventually) to lift and inspire and not to enrich and luxuriate.   

 

[Analytics]

Using the numbers that are circulating because the Church doesn't release financial reports, we'll assume the church has $7 billion a year in tithing, $7 billion a year in investment income, and $6 billion a year in expenses, services, and charity. Using those numbers:

The Church

1. Spends about 43% of total revenue on services and expenses, saves 57%.
2. It's rainy day fund would cover 20 years of expenses.

As a few comparisons, here are some actual numbers from other large charitable organizations.

The United Way Worldwide has about $84 million in assets. Including investment income, it takes in about $115 million a year in total revenue, and spends about $112 million a year.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/uww.assets/site/annual_report/2021/2021_United_Way_Worldwide_Financial_Statement_single_year.pdf

The United Way: 

1. Spends over 97% of its revenue on services and expenses, and saves 3%.
2. It's rainy day fund is less than one years expenses.

The American Red Cross: has about $3.7 billion in assets. It's total revenue, including from investment income, is about $2.9 billion, and expenses and services are are $2.7 billion.

The American Red Cross:

1. Spends over 93% of its revenue on services and expenses, and saves 7%
2. It's rainy day fund would last about a year and 4 months.

Lutheran Services in America:

https://lutheranservices.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/2022-Financial-Audit.pdf

9.5 million in assets. 5.9 million in revenue, including investment income. 4.5 million in expenses.

1. Spends 76% of revenue on services and expenses
2. Rainy day fund is a bit over 2 years

 

[Analytics]

20 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Your speculation, or have you acquired a document from the church that says this?

What we know is that the Church's tactic is to live on 90% of it's tithing revenue. That's all it does. The result is that it ends up hoarding wealth.

According to Forbes:

"Neilsen’s complaint claims Ensign president Roger Clarke has said the fund would be used should the second coming of Christ occur, while the Post reported that high-ranking cleric Bishop Gérald Caussc gave a March 2018 speech in which he connected the “prophecies of last days” to setting aside some “revenues each year to prepare for any possible future needs.”"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisettevoytko/2019/12/17/mormon-church-reportedly-amassed-100-billion-fund-for-second-coming-of-christ/?sh=2709d4836a7b

Saving money every year "to prepare for any possible future needs" isn't a plan. It is hoarding.

20 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

And what good will money do in the Second Coming?

Exactly. 

[Analytics]

10 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

I'll repeat what I said a year ago on this topic:

Let me repeat that: the investments are not USING up the money.  It's still there.  It's still available to be spent on good and admirable and noble things.  

That isn't the issue. In the words of Charity Watch, this is the issue:

"Giving is a fixed pie, remaining steady at about 2% of gross domestic product (GDP) for over four decades. Because charitable dollars are limited and society's needs are not, it is vital that charities do not hoard the funds that they raise.

"CharityWatch believes it is reasonable for a charity to set aside less than three years' worth its annual budget for financial stability and possible future needs. When a charity's available assets in reserve exceeds three years' worth its annual budget, CharityWatch downgrades its final letter grade rating."

https://www.charitywatch.org/high-asset-charities

[Pyreaux]

It seems good to put wealth into real things that will always be needed and can always use for ourselves, like land and farmland. Its more responsible to invest money than stuff it in a mattress. It's better to save its money than to pretend it will always come even in hard times. It's a perpetual motion machine, with money you have, invest it, take profits, reinvest it, use the profits to fulfill its mission, keep the original money for a rainy day.

Edited December 9, 2022 by Pyreaux

[Chum]

On 12/8/2022 at 11:53 AM, smac97 said:

Tribune: New database gives widest look ever at LDS Church landholdings. See what it owns and where.

This dataset is a fine thing. I used to puzzle out where the Tampa Temple could be built. Searching the Church's name in county appraiser sites didn't reveal much. The dataset named the Church's Ag arm and showed it has lots farmland near Ruskin (right off of I75). For members on the SW FL coast, that area is much closer than Orlando or Fort Lauderdale.

[Chum]

6 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

It seems good to put wealth into real things that will always be needed and can always use for ourselves, like land and farmland. Its more responsible to invest money than stuff it in a mattress. It's better to save its money than to pretend it will always come even in hard times. It's a perpetual motion machine, with money you have, invest it, take profits, reinvest is, use the profits to fulfill its mission, keep the original money for a rainy day.

This matches my take. An org could burn thru trillions while caring for masses of people during a severe economic event.

[Analytics]

45 minutes ago, gav said:

l... money and other bearer assets will likely be worthless in the deepest trough of that transition.

According to the leaked reports, about 85% of the Church's for-profit assets are stocks and bonds that will be worthless in the doomsday scenario you describe. Only 15% are in tangible assets such as farms and shopping malls.

[Analytics]

45 minutes ago, gav said:

l... money and other bearer assets will likely be worthless in the deepest trough of that transition.

According to the leaked reports, about 85% of the Church's for-profit assets are stocks and bonds that will be worthless in the doomsday scenario you describe. Only 15% are in tangible assets such as farms and shopping malls.

[gav]

8 minutes ago, Analytics said:

According to the leaked reports, about 85% of the Church's for-profit assets are stocks and bonds that will be worthless in the doomsday scenario you describe. Only 15% are in tangible assets such as farms and shopping malls.

Such sources sound impeccable! Stocks and bonds have been pretty good for growth over the last while, sounds like a diverse portfolio to me but just speculation without reliable or more comprehensive sources

[Pyreaux]

Some solid stocks are wiser to hold than the depreciating US dollar. I think the critics just hate that no matter how hard they labor, the Church has enough money to linger on without tithes or new converts long after they've all passed from this world.

Edited December 9, 2022 by Pyreaux

[Analytics]

16 minutes ago, gav said:

Such sources sound impeccable! Stocks and bonds have been pretty good for growth over the last while, sounds like a diverse portfolio to me but just speculation without reliable or more comprehensive sources

The Church's portfolio managers agree with you, and I tend to agree as well.

The point is that there are two types of assets: real assets and financial assets. Real assets are tangible things, such as farms, factories, machineries, and shopping malls. They have real value.

Financial assets aren't real. A bond is a loan to a corporation or to a government. A stock certificate is a claim on a percentage of a company's future profits. If the economy hums along, these things have value.

But if we go into some doomsday economic fall, 85% of of the Church's assets will be worthless, right when they are needed the most. As you said earlier, "money and other bearer assets will likely be worthless in the deepest trough of that transition."

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

That isn't the issue. In the words of Charity Watch, this is the issue:

"Giving is a fixed pie, remaining steady at about 2% of gross domestic product (GDP) for over four decades. Because charitable dollars are limited and society's needs are not, it is vital that charities do not hoard the funds that they raise.

"CharityWatch believes it is reasonable for a charity to set aside less than three years' worth its annual budget for financial stability and possible future needs. When a charity's available assets in reserve exceeds three years' worth its annual budget, CharityWatch downgrades its final letter grade rating."

https://www.charitywatch.org/high-asset-charities

As we discussed last month (the last time I saw you invoke CharityWatch relative to the Church) :

Quote

Quote

And my first expert witness on what is and is not wise strategies for charities would be Laurie Styron, the Executive Director of CharityWatch (the organization I linked to above that shows how egregious the Church's hoarding is).

CharityWatch does not monitor religious charities.  From its website:

Quote

CharityWatch does not accept requests from charities that ask to be rated, nor do we charge charities to be listed in our publication or website, or for the right to publicize their ratings. CharityWatch does not report on churches, synagogues, mosques, political action committees (PACs), fraternal clubs, colleges, or local institutions such as hospitals and museums. CharityWatch does report on the separate human and social welfare organizations of religious groups, such as the Salvation Army, Red Cloud Indian School, and others.

The current list of organizations rated by CharityWatch can be found here.

So good luck getting Ms. Styron qualified as an expert witness in your imagined court case.

As I recall, you glossed over this point then.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Just saw this, posted a few hours ago:

Quote

SALT LAKE CITY — The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints made a donation of $10 million to help in the fight to eradicate polio and provide other vaccinations for people around the world.

Money will help eradicate polio in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and a select number of African countries and also help eliminate maternal and neonatal tetanus in areas where the disease is prevalent.

Half of the $10 million will go directly to Rotary International, an organization known globally for its efforts in preventing polio. Church officials report that any donation to Rotary gets matched 2-to-1 by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Of the $5 million donation to Rotary, half of that will go towards helping African countries regain progress in the fight against polio that was lost during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Church officials report that in some areas, polio has reemerged because of a lack of efforts during the pandemic.

“Rotary is grateful for this very generous contribution from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," said Michael K. McGovern, chair of Rotary’s International PolioPlus Committee in a church press release. "The funding comes at a critical time for polio eradication efforts and will help protect children from lifelong paralysis due to the poliovirus.”

The other half of the church's $10 million donation will go to UNICEF to support efforts in eliminating maternal and neonatal tetanus.

With the donation, UNICEF, the World Health Organization and other partners will eliminate the spread of tetanus by vaccine administration to women of reproductive age and during pregnancy.

Not that this will ever matter to the relentlessly fault-finding cynics/critics of the Church.  They'll always have their pre-packaged answer to whatever the Church does, which is that it's...

And that no matter what the Church does, it must do...

 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 9, 2022 by smac97

[Analytics]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As we discussed last month (the last time I saw you invoke CharityWatch relative to the Church) :

As I recall, you glossed over this point then.

Thanks,

-Smac

I never meant to imply CharityWatch monitors churches. I merely cited them as an independent source that agrees "it is vital that charities do not hoard the funds that they raise."

The same principle applies to churches for the same reasons.

[Analytics]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Just saw this, posted a few hours ago:

It's wonderful that the Church donated $10 million to a charity. 

If they followed Harvard University's example and set the goal of giving away 5% of the principle in their endowment on an annual basis, they could give deserving causes $10 million a day, twice a day, every workday of the year, into perpetuity.

[Stormin' Mormon]

30 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The same principle applies to churches for the same reasons.

I'm not sure that it does.  

Churches and charities, despite the fact that they have overlap in their missions, and despite the fact that they are both non-profits and non-taxable, have very different operating expenses.  Churches, for example, have to provide a certain level of goods and services to their entire membership (publications, meeting houses, technology for those meetinghouses, etc) that traditional charities don't have to.  Then there is the fact that even large charities often have a low real estate footprint, and thus low overhead costs in building maintenance and new construction.  A Google search shows me three Red Cross locations in the mid-sized metro area in which I live; in that same area there are 18 church buildings, a temple, and a distribution center/bishop's storehouse.  

I'm not arguing that all that justifies the Church's huge piggy bank, but I am pushing back on the assertion that a Church and a traditional charity have similar needs vis-a-vis reserve funding.  

Edited December 9, 2022 by Stormin' Mormon

[The Mean Farmer]

On 12/8/2022 at 2:56 PM, LoudmouthMormon said:

Heh - something else that humans always do - someone sees a group of people doing well, and try to figure out ways to get a piece of the action.  Taxing is an excellent way, when outright theft or lawsuits aren't feasible.

Either they try to get a piece of the action, or they say, "If I can't be [x, e.g., rich] then nobody should be able to be!"  I think the latter is the much more common reaction, unfortunately.

 

 

I understand there are those who see unfairness in this, others simply have an axe to grind.

What I don't understand is how the punitive action of having an entity, say the Church, pay more in taxes solves anything. 

There is no benefit other than the perceived punitive action to the entity.  No one gains, benefits, or has anything easier for it.  It isn't like the government will spend it making lives better. 

Simply requesting/requiring an entity to give 'MORE' to the US, or any, government, seems a silly way of finding peace with the issue.  Unless all you want is pain.