Update on Church Finances

[smac97]

From the Tribune: LDS Church loses billions over three straight quarters. See how much it’s down.

Quote

Ensign Peak Advisors’ stock portfolio is now valued at $40.3B, well ahead of its pandemic low but behind its $52.3B peak.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints lost $12.1 billion — so far — in 2022 in its most prominent investment portfolio as turmoil continued to rock economies around the world.

New reports indicate the huge account managed by the faith’s investment arm, Salt Lake City-based Ensign Peak Advisors, dropped by $1.8 billion in value during the third quarter to $40.3 billion as of the end of September, its third consecutive quarterly decline.

Volatile markets since January reduced the church’s vast portfolio of stocks and mutual funds to where it was in fall 2020 as it was rebounding from a pandemic plunge. Its worth climbed from a three-year low of $29.9 billion seen in early 2020 to a peak of $52.3 billion in late 2021, before heading decidedly downward in 2022.

Wow.

From May 2022: LDS Church loses billions on stocks. See how much and how it did compared to the Dow.

Quote

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints lost $3.1 billion on investments as U.S. stock markets swooned this year.

New reports filed with federal regulators put a massive church account managed by the faith’s investment arm, Salt Lake City-based Ensign Peak Advisors, at $49.2 billion for the first quarter, down 6% from the close of 2021, when the fund reached a two-year high of $52.3 billion.

I commented back in December: "6%.  $3.1 billion dollars.  In a single three-month period.  Imagine if that were to happen quarter over quarter, year after year."

Not much need to imagine now.  In Q1 2022 the Church had $49.2 billion, which was 6% down from the close of 2021.  By Q3 2022, the Church was down to $40.3 billion.  Just look at the above graph.  In the last 11 reported quarters, Ensign Peak has lost money in five of them, to the tune of $12 billion dollars.

Quote

The account shed $3.1 billion in the first three months of 2022, followed by a $7.1 billion drop in April, May and June and $1.8 billion dip in July, August and September, according to the latest disclosures filed with the U.S Securities and Exchange Commission.

That put the portfolio down 4.3% for the most recent quarter, compared to a 6.2% slide for the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

The church investments have seen a 23% decline for 2022 as of September, faring a little worse than the blue-chip-oriented Dow, down 21% over the same period, as global investors reacted to record-high inflation, U.S. interest rate hikes, layoffs by major technology companies and the ongoing war in Ukraine.

So it looks like losses are an all-around thing, with Ensign Peak taking a major hit along with everyone else due to volatile markets, inflation, interest rate hikes, the war in Ukraine, and so on.

Still, "a 23% decline for 2022."  Ouch.

Back in December our Teancum claimed (or heavily implied) that the Church has amassed "probably 500 billion or so of wealth."  Uh-huh.  

This board has hosted all sorts of discussions in which critics have lambasted the Church for "hoarding wealth" (Analytics' preferred pejorative).  I think the above news items demonstrate that when discussing these amounts of wealth, I think few of us are situated to speak intelligently or competently about good wealth management.

Quote

Those 2022 losses for the Utah-based faith’s portfolio aside, the fund remains $10.4 billion ahead of its low in early 2020 with the U.S. onset of COVID-19.

Church officials portray the Ensign Peak fund as a “rainy day” account kept along with other investments, church-owned businesses and extensive landholdings to buffer the global faith of 16.8 million members from economic downturns and to help pay for its ministerial, philanthropic, educational and missionary works around the world.

COVID decimated Ensign Peak's holdings, and we are currently seeing further quarter-after-quarter losses in the billions due to the current above-referenced factors.

I wonder what the financial condition of the Church would be had it not planned and prepared for these "rainy day{s}."

Quote

The church has said Ensign Peak’s managers do not invest in industries that faithful Latter-day Saints consider objectionable, including alcohol, tobacco, coffee and gambling.
...
Otherwise, Ensign Peak’s quarterly reports to federal regulators suggest it operates much like other broadly based, professionally managed portfolios of stocks and mutual funds

Interesting stuff.

I have previously presented a number of factors that I think onlookers should take into account when evaluating the Church's financial behaviors:

1. The Brethren Ain't Getting Rich: Neither the Brethren nor anybody else is getting wealthy off the wealth of Ensign Peak's investments.  The Brethren could be living large by diverting some of the funds they oversee, as we see the leaders of some religious groups doing (Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, Creflo Dollar, Joel Osteen, etc.).  But they don't.  They aren't in it for the money.  They aren't in it to enrich themselves or anyone else.

2. Ensign Peak Foregoes Problematic Investments: Per the above article, Ensign Peak could invest in industries which, though often very lucrative, can be viewed as morally problematic according to the Church.  But it doesn't.

3. The Church's Increasing Charitable/Philanthropic/Religious Expenditures: Per this 2020 Deseret News article, the Church "{has} doubled its humanitarian spending over the past five years and now annually provides nearly $1 billion in combined humanitarian and welfare aid" and "'we believe {these expenditures} are going to increase fast,' {Bishop Caussé} said."  Per the article, the Church is also is supporting 30,000 congregations, 200 temples, educational opportunities for hundreds of thousands of students, food, clothing and shelter for hundreds of thousands of people a year.

4. Weathering Hard Economic Times: From Bishop Waddell in the Presiding Bishopric in 2020 (from the above article) : "“There will be future downturns.  How extensive, how dramatic we don’t know. But one of the comments we made to the Journal was that if that were to happen, because of the reserves being carefully watched over, protected and wisely handled, we won’t have to stop missionary work, we won’t have to stop maintaining buildings and building temples, we won’t have to stop humanitarian and welfare work, we won’t have to stop education work. What the journalist (wrote) was that we won’t have to stop missionary work, period. Well, there’s more than that.” 

From Bishop Caussé, also in 2020: "Most of the growth, I have to say, is because we are right now in the longest period of prosperity in the United States that has ever been recorded, and this is creating that surge of financial markets.  We are just beneficiaries of it.” 

Fastforward to BlackRock issuing warnings in December 2022: "The global economy has already exited a four-decade era of stable growth and inflation to enter a period of heightened instability — and the new regime of increased unpredictability is here to stay."

5. Prudence in Charitable Giving: There seems to be, in the minds of some, the notion that solving most or all social ills involves just mindlessly throwing money at them, typically money forcibly taken by the government and diverted to politically-connected and -privileged programs and groups, and regardless of the actual effectiveness of such programs/groups. 

I recently saw this video clip of Joe Rogan in which he raises some pretty interesting points:

A transcript:

I have a friend, Colion Noir, who was a lawyer.  He was in San Francisco, and his perspective was 'Oh, they're not spending enough to fix this homeless problem.'  And then he talked to someone who was actually deeply embedded in that situation, who said 'No, no.  That's not the problem.  They are spending a lot money on it.  But the money is going to these people that get high salaries that work on the homeless problem.  And he showed us a spreadsheet of all these people, and it's six-figure salaries, some of them $250,000 a year.  And it's a lot of them that are handling the homeless situation.  In Los Angeles, in San Francisco.  And there's no incentive to fix it.  The budget goes up every year.  The homeless problem goes up every year.  There's no accountability.  There's no 'Hey, we've spent all this money, and {yet} the problem is bigger.'  And {these} guys keep getting raises.  Like, what the $#%^ is going on here?  It becomes an industry.  And then fixing the homeless {problem}.  Pull up the budget for dealing with the homeless in Los Angeles in 2022.  Because it's bonkers.  When you see the sheer amount of money that's being spent ineffectively.  And all anybody seems to care about is 'We're working hard to mitigate the homeless situation, and we have upped our budget.'  Oh, they have upped their budget.  This is great.  And you think, 'That must be effective, we're gonna fix this.'  But nothing gets done.  $7.2 billion.  Just for {dealing with} homelessness {in California}. ... $3.3 billion general fund in 2021-2022 to almost thirty homelessness-related programs across the state.  That is so much money.  And yet the problem gets bigger and bigger every year.

I suspect the concerns reflected the foregoing comments are . . . warranted.  If anything, I think Joe was incorrect when he said "there's no incentive to fix" homelessness in CA.  There are, instead, very strong incentives for some of the Powers-that-Be to perpetuate homelessness, as it is the Golden Goose that keeps laying eggs to pay for those quarter-million-a-year-salaries.

I raise this in light of this comment from the 2020 D-News article quoted above:

Quote

Increases in humanitarian and welfare spending are driven first by the contributions and volunteerism of church members, the bishops said. The other major factor is how quickly the church can ensure new avenues for precise giving. For example, Latter-day Saint Charities carefully and thoroughly assesses each partner. “The last thing you want to do is just give them money and then you really don’t know where it goes,” Bishop Davies said. “So we have both missionaries and area staff on the ground, feet on the ground, who actually are there, they can see that food’s being distributed, or equipment, or schools are being built as part of our program.”

“We have an obligation to the members of the church who pay their tithes and offerings to make sure that is going to organizations or areas that will actually meet a need,” Bishop Waddell said. “The members of the church have a right to trust that it’s going to be managed and handled well and not just thrown at issues.”

I think that makes a lot of sense.  The Church's funds are sacred, and ought not to be thrown around willy-nilly like the huge-and-hugely-wasteful "Hey, let's just throw more money at it" approach taken in California.

One of the relentlessly fault-finding cynics on this board has commented: "The Church's primary mission is to increase the size of its investment portfolio ... that is its biggest priority.  By far."  

I am increasingly find that accusation pretty fatuous.  And ignorant.

Critics like this remind me of Prince Humperdinck from Princess Bride:

I think some (many?) of these critics don't actually give two figs about social ills and the people suffering from them when they grouse about the Church not spending its funds in ways they think it should.  Instead, I think they are considerably more invested in armchair quarterbacking, if not outright maliciousness.  So they use this issue - spending on social problems - as a convenient and pretextual brickbat against a religious group they dislike. The reasoning is not very deep:

The Church has money. 

The Church could donate billions of dollars of its accumulated funds to any and every and any social program, regardless of how actually effective such programs are, regardless of whether such programs - as Bishop Waddell so aptly put it - "will actually meet a need."

The Church does not do this.  Instead, it carefully vets philanthropic partners, and also keeps sufficient reserves for "rainy day" events like COVID, the war in Ukraine, and so on.

Nevertheless, critics now have an opportunity to publicly rake the Church across the coals.  So they rake.

Bishop Waddell was quite correct.  The Church does have "an obligation to the members of the church who pay their tithes and offerings to make sure that is going to organizations or areas that will actually meet a need."  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited January 10, 2023 by smac97

[Analytics]

53 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Still, "a 23% decline for 2022."  Ouch.

The good news is that since they don't use any of the principle or interest from the EPA accounts for any religious or charitable purposes, these losses don't have an affect on the Church's ability to fund its religious or charitable operations. 

53 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This board has hosted all sorts of discussions in which critics have lambasted the Church for "hoarding wealth" (Analytics' preferred pejorative).  I think the above news items demonstrate that when discussing these amounts of wealth, I think few of us are situated to speak intelligently or competently about good wealth management.

Do you think that you are situated to speak intelligently or competently about good wealth management? 

53 minutes ago, smac97 said:

COVID decimated Ensign Peak's holdings, and we are currently seeing further quarter-after-quarter losses in the billions due to the current above-referenced factors.

I wonder what the financial condition of the Church would be had it not planned and prepared for these "rainy day{s}."

What you are saying here only makes sense if the mission of the Church is to maximize the size of its stock portfolio. If the goal of the Church was to always have at least $40 billion in the funds it repots to the SEC, while at the same time maximizing upside potential, then it makes sense to save upwards of $60 billion in those funds so that it stays above $40 billion in the face of market volatility. 

But the actual cause of these losses is the staggering sum of money it has hoarded in the stock market. If it doesn't want to be exposed to this market risk, the solution is simple: don't invest tens of billions in the stock market!

53 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 Per this 2020 Deseret News article, the Church "{has} doubled its humanitarian spending over the past five years and now annually provides nearly $1 billion in combined humanitarian and welfare aid" and "'we believe {these expenditures} are going to increase fast,' {Bishop Caussé} said." 

I'm glad Bishop Caussé believes that the Church will eventually start taking my advice. 

53 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Per the article, the Church is also is supporting 30,000 congregations, 200 temples, educational opportunities for hundreds of thousands of students, food, clothing and shelter for hundreds of thousands of people a year.

And it does all that on about 90% of its tithing revenue, and uses the remaining 10% to increase the size of its hoard.

53 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There seems to be, in the minds of some, the notion that solving most or all social ills involves just mindlessly throwing money at them, typically money forcibly taken by the government and diverted to politically-connected and -privileged programs and groups, and regardless of the actual effectiveness of such programs/groups. 

Ebenezer Scrooge couldn't have said it any better himself.

53 minutes ago, smac97 said:

One of the relentlessly fault-finding cynics on this board has commented: "The Church's primary mission is to increase the size of its investment portfolio ... that is its biggest priority.  By far."  

When you look at the Church's total income, in most years it uses most of its income to increase the size of its investment portfolio. According to the financial statements, that is a simple fact. The Church exposing itself to market losses is a deliberate decision it made and was driven by:

1. having a long-term investment horizon (i.e. not needing the money anytime soon)
    
2. Deciding that maximizing long-term growth is more important than minimizing short-term volatility.

These decisions are consistent with an organization that is trying to maximize the size of its portfolio in the long run and are inconsistent with an organization that wants to use the funds to finance an unexpected emergency.

53 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Bishop Waddell was quite correct.  The Church does have "an obligation to the members of the church who pay their tithes and offerings to make sure that is going to organizations or areas that will actually meet a need."  

Given the fact that the Church uses most of its total income to increase the size of its investment portfolio rather than giving it to "organizations or areas that will actually meet a need," do you think the Church is meeting this obligation?

[Bernard Gui]

Sounds like the hit my retirement investment fund has taken (along with inflation), although mine is hardly in the billions or even millions, more’s the pity.

On the other hand, market corrections are overdue. Fasten your seatbelts.

Edited January 10, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Sounds like the hit my retirement investment fund has taken (along with inflation), although mine is hardly in the billions or even millions, more’s the pity.

On the other hand, market corrections are overdue. Fasten your seatbelts.

With an entire year now of the market tanking, I prefer to hope the market correction is mostly behind us. Regression toward the mean and all that. 
 

In times like these, it helps me to consider not just the monetary value of my portfolio, but the amount of shares I own, knowing that when the recovery comes (as it surely will) the aggregate will increase in value as each share increases. That means my portfolio is growing with each reinvested dividend, even though the monetary value is down right now. When the next record high comes, the unrealized gains will be greater than the unrealized losses have been. 

Edited January 10, 2023 by Scott Lloyd

[Teancum]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Back in December our Teancum claimed (or heavily implied) that the Church has amassed "probably 500 billion or so of wealth."  Uh-huh.  

That was speculation and included land and other business holdings.  Not just the stock portfolio.  And almost everyone's stock portfolio is down.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Balaam said:

I am not a financial guru, but I think those "losses" are only accountant-speak for what would be realized if they cashed out now on those assets.  If the stocks remain stocks, with no conversion to cash, they represent a percentage of ownership in the entities who issued those stocks with no cash value until they are cashed out, if ever.  Cash is not the only thing with real value., and in my view there are many things with more real value than cash.

I like the term “unrealized gains (or losses)”. It helps me bear in mind that the value is only ethereal until it is “locked in” through the sale of shares. 

Also, I like the analogy of using a yo-yo while walking uphill. The yo-yo is constantly going up and down, but the long-term trend is upward. There has never been a time in history when the market has not recovered. 

[Analytics]

28 minutes ago, Teancum said:

That was speculation and included land and other business holdings.  Not just the stock portfolio.  And almost everyone's stock portfolio is down.

It's also worth pointing out that the Tribune story is based on the assets that Ensign Peak Advisors reports to the SEC, not on the Church's total assets. The SEC requires large institutional investors to report their positions in "Section 13F Securities" on a quarterly basis. What is a "Section 13F Security" you may ask? It is a specific stock listed on the SEC's list of Section 13F Securities that it updates on a quarterly basis. The list basically includes stocks that are traded on major U.S. stock exchanges and excludes bonds, treasury notes, cash, international stock, privately held stock, closely held stock, etc.

According to the whistleblower report, about 33% of EPA's financial assets are Section 13F Securities. So when the Tribune says EPA holds $40 billion in Section 13F Securities, EPA's total assets are closer to 3 times that (e.g. $120 billion). That excludes the value of its commercial real estate (another $30 billion maybe?), and the financial assets that haven't been transferred to EPA.

That $120 billion is up about 20% from what the whistleblower said the portfolio was worth 4 years ago. So despite the market losses its suffered, the Church's financial empire has grown by about $20 billion over the last 4 years, plus the growth in the value of its real estate portfolio. And that's in a down market.

[LoudmouthMormon]

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

There seems to be, in the minds of some, the notion that solving most or all social ills involves just mindlessly throwing money at them, typically money forcibly taken by the government and diverted to politically-connected and -privileged programs and groups, and regardless of the actual effectiveness of such programs/groups. 

Ebenezer Scrooge couldn't have said it any better himself.

Heh.  You can usually tell who has the lesser hand, by who is first to descend to tactics of namecalling, demonizing, and class warfare.  

Some folks dig down to "I can't tell the difference between investing and hoarding", and then, after a rest, continue to dig until they hit "I can't tell the difference between an organization following a rational investment strategy to ensure long-term health, and an uncaring miser full of loathing for humanity and love of money".  

When you think of the first presidency and quorum of the 12, sitting down to discuss tithing, do you think they look like this?

 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

According to the whistleblower report, about 33% of EPA's financial assets are Section 13F Securities. So when the Tribune says EPA holds $40 billion in Section 13F Securities, EPA's total assets are closer to 3 times that (e.g. $120 billion). That excludes the value of its commercial real estate (another $30 billion maybe?), and the financial assets that haven't been transferred to EPA.

Given the inaccuracies and lack of documentation for any of the brother (Lars iirc) generated material of the so-called whistleblower’s account, I wouldn’t trust anything that wasn’t originally printed by EPA (meaning I am discounting his notes written in the EPA documents).  I don’t believe he ever established enough credibility to be trusted in his analysis or recall.  Anyone who uses circular footnoting for ‘references’ doesn’t know what they are doing, imo, or is being intentionally deceptive.  

His brother, David, the actual whistleblower/employee of Ensign Peak, never did confirm the reliability of the other’s report, did he?  The report that was published without his consent according to him?

Edited January 11, 2023 by Calm

[Teancum]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

This board has hosted all sorts of discussions in which critics have lambasted the Church for "hoarding wealth" (Analytics' preferred pejorative).  I think the above news items demonstrate that when discussing these amounts of wealth, I think few of us are situated to speak intelligently or competently about good wealth management.

Really?  Why?  I am a CPA and hold security licenses as well. That gives me some knowledge about such things.  Additionally @Analyticshas provided a lot of information on how much of a "rainy day" fund other NFP organizations have as well as what are considered reasonable rules of thumb on such things.  And I have repeatedly said I think the Church is prudents for accumulating assets to protect itself financially but yes I have questioned and criticized what still seems like an enormous amount of assets the church owns.

[Teancum]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

here seems to be, in the minds of some, the notion that solving most or all social ills involves just mindlessly throwing money at them, typically money forcibly taken by the government and diverted to politically-connected and -privileged programs and groups, and regardless of the actual effectiveness of such programs/groups. 

Uh not from me and others here.

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

A transcript:

I have a friend, Colion Noir, who was a lawyer.  He was in San Francisco, and his perspective was 'Oh, they're not spending enough to fix this homeless problem.'  And then he talked to someone who was actually deeply embedded in that situation, who said 'No, no.  That's not the problem.  They are spending a lot money on it.  But the money is going to these people that get high salaries that work on the homeless problem.  And he showed us a spreadsheet of all these people, and it's six-figure salaries, some of them $250,000 a year.  And it's a lot of them that are handling the homeless situation.  In Los Angeles, in San Francisco.  And there's no incentive to fix it.  The budget goes up every year.  The homeless problem goes up every year.  There's no accountability.  There's no 'Hey, we've spent all this money, and {yet} the problem is bigger.'  And {these} guys keep getting raises.  Like, what the $#%^ is going on here?  It becomes an industry.  And then fixing the homeless {problem}.  Pull up the budget for dealing with the homeless in Los Angeles in 2022.  Because it's bonkers.  When you see the sheer amount of money that's being spent ineffectively.  And all anybody seems to care about is 'We're working hard to mitigate the homeless situation, and we have upped our budget.'  Oh, they have upped their budget.  This is great.  And you think, 'That must be effective, we're gonna fix this.'  But nothing gets done.  $7.2 billion.  Just for {dealing with} homelessness {in California}. ... $3.3 billion general fund in 2021-2022 to almost thirty homelessness-related programs across the state.  That is so much money.  And yet the problem gets bigger and bigger every year.

Well, if known serial liar ‘they are putting cat litter boxes in the schools for the furries’ Joe Rogan said it….

[MiserereNobis]

Good thing that the wealth of the Catholic Church is in timeless art and architecture!

[Analytics]

11 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Heh.  You can usually tell who has the lesser hand, by who is first to descend to tactics of namecalling, demonizing, and class warfare.  

By that standard, Smac has the lesser hand coming out of the gate that I'm a "fault-finding cynic" guilty of "armchair quarterbacking" and "outright maliciousness," to say nothing of his Prince Humperdinck memes.

11 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Some folks dig down to "I can't tell the difference between investing and hoarding", and then, after a rest, continue to dig until they hit "I can't tell the difference between an organization following a rational investment strategy to ensure long-term health, and an uncaring miser full of loathing for humanity and love of money".  

Who accused anyone of being "an uncaring miser full of loating for humanity and love of money?" Certainly not I. 

[Analytics]

41 minutes ago, Calm said:

Given the inaccuracies and lack of documentation for any of the brother own material of the so-called whistleblower’s account, I wouldn’t trust anything that wasn’t originally printed by EPA (meaning I am discounting his notes written in the EPA documents).  I don’t believe he ever established enough credibility to be trusted in his analysis or recall.  Anyone who uses circular footnoting for ‘references’ doesn’t know what they are doing, imo, or is being intentionally deceptive.  

His brother, the actual whistleblower/employee of Ensign Peak, never did confirm the reliability of the other’s report, did he?  The report that was published without his consent according to him?

As far as I know, David Nielsen (the EPA former employee) never confirmed that what his brother Lars said was accurate. But he didn't deny it, either.

Personally, I find the whistleblower report to be oozing with credibility. 

[The Nehor]

41 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Uh not from me and others here.

This is a thinly veiled ‘related to the church’ shot at a bunch of strawman caricatures.

[LoudmouthMormon]

35 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Who accused anyone of being "an uncaring miser full of loating for humanity and love of money?" 

Charles ****ens.

(lol nice spam filter.   Charles D i c k e n s)

Edited January 10, 2023 by LoudmouthMormon

[Analytics]

20 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Charles ****ens.

(lol nice spam filter.   Charles D i c k e n s)

A Scrooge apologist would certainly say:

"One thing the anti-Scroogests never address is that Scrooge isn't using his money to live large. He isn't being glutinous with his money. He doesn't use it to buy expensive food and drink. He doesn't throw extravagant parties or travel to exotic locations. He is frugal with his money and doesn't even keep his room very warm. But the people who accuse scrooge of loving money never mention this. Telling.

"This proves that Scrooge doesn't hoard his wealth. He is simply being wise and prudent with his money."

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Good thing that the wealth of the Catholic Church is in timeless art and architecture!

Geez, I hope y'all have good flood insurance at such a low elevation.  It would make for a killer diving expedition though. 

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/246686/pope-francis-world-could-face-a-new-great-flood

We prefer "the tops of the mountains". 

[Mark Beesley]

Won’t it be wonderful one day when the Church, meaning the members and their leaders, can begin to really establish Zion and build the New Jerusalem with Independence at the Center Place. Maybe then we can become free from the bondage of the Great and Abominable Church of  Capitalism, and value people as Children of God rather than human resources. (In what rational mammon-based economy is an entertainer paid more than a teacher? Kind of shows what we value.)

Naturally, the Church will likely need significant mammon to deal with the outside world, but in the New Jerusalem, the currency of exchange will be love—not corrupt carnal love but the pure love of Christ. So I wouldn’t be too concerned about the Church’s financial situation today. it is likely that when we establish the New Jerusalem, the United States as we know it will be no longer exist. I give it 20 years, maybe. And when it happens and the New Jerusalem is established, the then-defunct Constitution of the expired United States of America will be the model for the governance of this New Jerusalem, for there will be many non-LDS who will flee to the New Jerusalem to escape the ravages of the rest of the land.

And, of course relevant to the topic, the value of United States currency will diminish dramatically when it has to be converted to whatever currencies arise outside the New Jerusalem. So the Church should have more than we may think it needs in preparation for those events.

Most folks, it seems, are not listening to the prophets. Shocking!

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

As far as I know, David Nielsen (the EPA former employee) never confirmed that what his brother Lars said was accurate. But he didn't deny it, either.

Personally, I find the whistleblower report to be oozing with credibility. 

That you call it the whistleblower report doesn’t fill me with confidence about your concern over accuracy though.

[Calm]

55 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said:

In what rational mammon-based economy is an entertainer paid more than a teacher? Kind of shows what we value

Entertainment is important and if they reach more people than a teacher and work long hours to prepare as well as perform, I don’t have an issue with them getting paid more, especially since they may have a limited number of years in the business.  I suspect the vast majority of entertainers do not make as much as teachers though.  For the few that make millions vs the tens of thousands teachers get, that does seems very unbalanced to me.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

As far as I know, David Nielsen (the EPA former employee) never confirmed that what his brother Lars said was accurate. But he didn't deny it, either.

Personally, I find the whistleblower report to be oozing with credibility. 

It is credible despite it being secondhand and the firsthand identified and not being willing to confirm the info? The whistleblower also wrote the most warped and wrongheaded report to the IRS about it as well that shows they have no idea what the IRS cares about and are more interested in making it look official than accomplishing anything.

What kind of information wouldn’t be credible to you?

[Calm]

Quote

Pull up the budget for dealing with the homeless in Los Angeles in 2022.  Because it's bonkers.  When you see the sheer amount of money that's being spent ineffectively.  And all anybody seems to care about is 'We're working hard to mitigate the homeless situation, and we have upped our budget.'  Oh, they have upped their budget.  This is great.  And you think, 'That must be effective, we're gonna fix this.'  But nothing gets done.  $7.2 billion.

https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/la-west/homelessness/2021/06/02/garcetti-signs--11-billion-budget--with-nearly--1-billion-for-homeless-crisis
 

Quote

Mayor Eric Garcetti Wednesday signed the city's $11.2 billion budget for the 2021-22 fiscal year, which allocates historic spending of nearly $1 billion to combat Los Angeles' homelessness crisis.

https://www.npr.org/2021/04/20/989015659/la-dedicates-1-billion-to-fight-homelessness
 

Unless the budgets went dramatically up in a year, the combined city and county is maybe a third of the claim.

added:  Ah, it appears to be the state budget which makes more sense…

https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4521

Quote

As of January 2020—the most recent year federal data is available—California had about 161,500 individuals experiencing homelessness. 

Shifting State‑Local Relationship. Historically, local entities have provided most of the homelessness assistance in their jurisdiction, relying in part on federal and state funding. As the homelessness crisis has become more acute, the state has taken a larger role in funding and supporting local governments’ efforts to address homelessness. The state has increased its role in addressing homelessness by providing significant, albeit one‑time and temporary, funding towards infrastructure and flexible aid to local governments in recent years. 

Update on Key Recent Homelessness State Spending. Recent budget actions reflect the increased role of the state in addressing homelessness. The state budget provided a total of $7.2 billion ($3.3 billion General Fund) in 2021‑22 to about 30 homelessness‑related programs across various state departments. 

 

Edited January 11, 2023 by Calm

[smac97]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Well, if known serial liar ‘they are putting cat litter boxes in the schools for the furries’ Joe Rogan said it….

First, I'm not really into Cancel Culture, or at least I try not to be.

Second, quite the ad hominem / non sequitur you have going there.

Third, Rogan has admitted he was wrong (see here, here, here).

Fourth, that Rogan was apparently taken in by a fairly widespread rumor is not, I think, an indictment on his overall character.  He also said some strange things about COVID, and apparently has a past history of using "racially insensitive language."  In other words, he is human, with quirks and flaws and missteps and debatable opinions on some things.  

Fifth, I think there are reasonable grounds to consider the accuracy of his assessment of California as spending billions on homelessness and having some serious problems with profligacy in that.

Thanks,

-Smac