Update on Church Finances

[smac97]

6 hours 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.  

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?

 

My Cocaine's portrayal of Scrooge in The Muppet Christmas Carol is the best, IMO.

 

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

My Cocaine's portrayal of Scrooge in The Muppet Christmas Carol is the best, IMO.

 

Thanks,

-Smac

My Cocaine?  Do you mean Michael Caine? That’s quite a nickname you have for him. 
 

You must be using the speech-to-text function on your phone. Took me a second to figure it out. 
 

Caine’s portrayal is not the best, by the way. George C. Scott’s is better. And no one outdoes Alastair Sim ( 1951 version). 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

that Rogan was apparently taken in by a fairly widespread rumor is not, I think, an indictment on his overall character.

It is a nonsensical rumor though, so if he was actually taken in I got to wonder about his intelligence or at least his gullibility.

And, btw, how is this not political?

Edited January 11, 2023 by Calm

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My Cocaine?  Do you mean Michael Caine? That’s quite a nickname you have for him. 
 

You must be using the speech-to-text function on your phone. Took me a second to figure it out. 
 

Caine’s portrayal is not the best, by the way. George C. Scott’s is better. And no one outdoes Alastair Sim ( 1951 version). 

"My Cocaine" is a joke about how he pronounces his own name.

[Kenngo1969]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

My Cocaine's portrayal of Scrooge in The Muppet Christmas Carol is the best, IMO.

 

Thanks,

-Smac

 

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My Cocaine?  Do you mean Michael Caine? That’s quite a nickname you have for him. 
 

You must be using the speech-to-text function on your phone. Took me a second to figure it out. ... 

I'll be honest: That was my first thought, as well: "Speech-to-text strikes again?"

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

"My Cocaine" is a joke about how he pronounces his own name.

It's amazing, what one can find on Ye Olde Internet!

https://mashable.com/video/michael-caine-my-cocaine-story

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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

Seems like the OP has a lot of that going for it.

[Teancum]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

And as I have noted many times this is irrelevant at least as far as my comments and others here. We are not making this argument.  I do not think the leaders are getting filthy rich or pocketing the dividends the stock in EPA kick off.  Is has absolutely 0 bearing over whether the amount of assets a church that claims to be THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST is accumulating excessive assets. It has no bearing on what proper levels are for such an organization.  It really it a tiresome worn out specious point you repeat over and over.

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

So? This would seem like a given.  ANd really unless you know exactly what EPA owns you do not know this for certain.

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

A billion per year is a wonderful thing.  Yet it seems pretty low based on income and assets.  And how much of that billion comes from members annually?  If that include fast offering will then the members are funding that annually

and none is coming out of income from EPA.  In fact we know EPA has spent $0 for humanitarian and welfare aid.  $0.  As for supporting congregation that is all funded on annual income from the members. So no EPA $ are used for any of this.

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

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."

And I have noted numerous times I believe the church should plan for this. The main question is how much does it need?  Is $50 billion to much or to little?  $100 billion?  Personally IMO I would say 2 to 3 time annual operating expenses is more than a enough for a Church or other NFP. So say $20 to $25 billion.

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

Meh.  Straw man and personal opinion.  Not worth addressing.

[Teancum]

And as has been noted these are UNREALIZED losses. Unless EPA sells in the down market they can hold and ride the storm out. Plus they can make some bargain purchases. Since they seem in it for the long haul and don't use the assets for anything at all no big deal really. I worry more about those  heading into or in retirements that need to tap into their investments to live on.

[Teancum]

16 hours ago, Analytics said:

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.

Great point!

[Scott Lloyd]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

"My Cocaine" is a joke about how he pronounces his own name.

 

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

I'll be honest: That was my first thought, as well: "Speech-to-text strikes again?"

It's amazing, what one can find on Ye Olde Internet!

https://mashable.com/video/michael-caine-my-cocaine-story

OK, I get it now. 
 

I enjoy a good pop-culture reference from time to time. But this one strikes me as rather obscure. 

[Analytics]

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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.

Let me qualify my point. In terms of being a serious complaint to the IRS? In that regard, it isn't a very good document. I'd give it a D, at best. I don't know if David has made a more serious complaint that has been sent to the IRS and hasn't been made public. 

But in terms of giving an accurate depiction of the Church's finances? In that regard, I give it an A. Consider:

Exhibit A claims to show EPA's assets as-of February 2019. The way the assets are categorized and the level of detail show a high degree of competence (e.g. dividing the assets between allocated and non-allocated capital held directly by EPA, and for-profit real estate assets being reported but not owned by EPA). The further breakdowns and target allocations (i.e. 60% equity, 38% hybrid and credit, 2% cash) and even further breakdowns (i.e. treasury assets, affiliated assets, US equity, international equity, private equity, hybrid, credit/duration, and cash), with target and actual portfolio allocations look like an an actual report written by MBAs who are reporting on an real-world portfolio of assets that are being managed according to best practices. Granted, somebody who was competent could make up something like this, but why would a fraudster go to so much detail? Lars had the means, motive, and opportunity to tell the truth about this. Given that, why would he make up a bunch of lies?

If you look at what the Church has publicly said about its investment strategy (i.e. live on less than you make and invest the rest for a rainy day fund), make reasonable estimates about its tithing revenue, and backcast that against the market for the last 50 years, the net result is basically the asset portfolio we see.

SEC regulations have required Ensign Peak Advisors to report its Section 13F assets on a quarterly basis since it was founded in 1997. EPA ignored these regulations until a few months after the whistleblower report was published. That couldn't be a coincidence.

The details EPA has reported to the IRS are entirely consistent with the details of Exhibit A under US Equities. And for a portfolio like this, limiting Section 13F equities to 35% of your portfolio is entirely consistent with best practices.

Summarizing that, the following are all consistent with Exhibit A:

• What the church has publicly stated about its financial management tactics
• Market performance over the last 50 years
• Reasonable estimates on the Church's tithing revenue
• The fact the Church started complying with Section 13F in response to this document being leaked
• The details in the Section 13F reports the Church has made
• Portfolio management best practices
• The history of how the funds built up according to the whistleblower report

It's like a jigsaw puzzle where all the puzzle pieces nicely fit together to show a clear picture of something. The fact that everything fits is strong evidence that the puzzle pieces are authentic and that you assembled them correctly.

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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

 Lots of things aren't credible. For example, SMAC's speculations on this topic aren't credible. Neither are Michael Quinn's.

Edited January 11, 2023 by Analytics

[Analytics]

[Duplicate]

Edited January 11, 2023 by Analytics

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

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.

And as I have noted many times this is irrelevant at least as far as my comments and others here.

I think it is quite relevant.  The narrative you and yours are peddling is that the Church is motivated by greed, that its primary objective is to make money, and so on.  As one fellow put it: "The Church's primary mission is to increase the size of its investment portfolio ... that is its biggest priority.  By far."  I noted this in December:

Quote

Quote

So great.  The leaders are not living high on the hog. So what? 

Quite a bit, actually.  It really goes to the motives and explanations for what is going on.

Many of our more virulently hostile critics implicitly or explicitly decry "massive wealth accumulation" by the Church by comparing the Church to for-profit businesses, which typically focus on making money and enriching the executives and shareholders.  Then there are the comparisons to televangelists and the like to "live large" (mansions, jets, fancy cars, yachts, etc.).  Implicit in such comparisons are accusations of avarice, greed, love of money, and so on.

These comparisons and analogies are, in my view, largely gutted by pointing out - as I often do - that the Brethren are not enriching themselves off of the Widow's Mite.  Nor are they "hoarding money for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ" (which has always come across as an asinine claim anyway). 

So if greed / avarice / self-dealing is not a viable explanation, and if "hoarding for the Second Coming" is not a viable explanation, then what is?

Nor are the Brethren or the Church reasonably compared to Ebenezer Scrooge, as Analytics has repeatedly done (here, here, here) (and if that comparison was not sufficiently on-the-nose, he has also characterized the Brethren as "miserly"), as well as "SeekingUnderstanding" (here).  Analytics has also characterized the Church as being "primarily a giant hedge fund that happens to also have a religious operation," and has compared it to a hypothetical "Pharaoh {who} starved his own people now because he wanted to save up food for himself for a hypothetical 20-year famine."  He has also said that it is "obscene" for the Church to look to and plan for its long-term existence.

So, yeah.  Both explicit and implicit accusations are going on here.  

You responded:

Quote

The question is what is a reasonable amount of wealth for such an organization to accumulate. I have noted many time I think some level of wealth accumulation seems proper given our modern world and the fact that the church is a large world wide  organization.  Based on what I know about such organizations the LDS church's wealth accumulation is horribly excessive.

I'm tempted to quote a guy: "Meh.  Straw man and personal opinion.  Not worth addressing."  But I won't. 

What "such organizations" are you referencing here?  Analytics regularly cites to CharityWatch, which expressly states that it "do{es} not report on churches, synagogues, mosques, political action committees (PACs), fraternal clubs, colleges, or local institutions such as hospitals and museums." 

So what sort of objective and apples-to-apples criteria/metrics are you using to reach your "horribly excessive" conclusion?

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

We are not making this argument. 

Candidly, I think you are.  See above.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

I do not think the leaders are getting filthy rich or pocketing the dividends the stock in EPA kick off.

And yet the narrative is that the Brethren "are so greedy that they would rather lie to keep the money rolling in."

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Is has absolutely 0 bearing over whether the amount of assets a church that claims to be THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST is accumulating excessive assets.  It has no bearing on what proper levels are for such an organization.  It really it a tiresome worn out specious point you repeat over and over.

It ABSOLUTELY has bearing on how the Church is and/or should be managing its finances (upper-case shouting is a thing now, I guess).

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

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.

So? This would seem like a given. 

And yet, it's not treated "like a given."  The Church has been characterized as being "primarily a giant hedge fund that happens to also have a religious operation."  As having the "hoarding" of "wealth" as an end unto itself.  But if that were the case, EPA would look to maximize its investments by including problematic industries.  And yet . . . it doesn't.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

And really unless you know exactly what EPA owns you do not know this for certain.

This coming from the same fellow asserting that the Church has $500 billion.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

A billion per year is a wonderful thing. 

I'm reminded of the lyrics to a song from The Greatest Showman:

All the shine of a thousand spotlights
All the stars we steal from the night sky
Will never be enough
Never be enough
Towers of gold are still too little
These hands could hold the world, but it'll
Never be enough
Never be enough
For me

Never, never
Never, never
Never, for me
For me...

In this, the Age of Perpetual Outrage, there will always be someone insisting that someone else is doing something wrong.

For our critics, nothing we do will ever be enough.  They just shift the goalposts, present an undefined demand for "more," and then vilify the Church when it fails to immediately hop to. 

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Yet it seems pretty low based on income and assets. 

Again, I'm tempted to quote a guy: "Meh.  Straw man and personal opinion.  Not worth addressing."

I think this treatment of the topic at hand addresses your opinion: The $100 Billion ‘Mormon Church’ Story: A Contextual Analysis

An excerpt:

Quote

Are the Church’s reserve funds illegal or somehow evading taxes?

For tax purposes, as an integrated auxiliary, the investment arm of the Church, Ensign Peak Advisors, is under no obligation to make minimum distributions. The allegations appear to stem from the whistleblower’s misunderstanding of tax law. For unknown reasons, the whistleblower apparently didn’t hire an attorney or a tax expert to help write this report.

One can only assume this is why so many of the conclusions in the whistleblower report diverge from the law. Not only does the whistleblower report misconstrue the definition of “charitable,” but it also applies something called the commensurate test (explained below) in a way never before applied by the IRS, and it fails to give enough evidence to demonstrate that two alleged investment disbursements were in fact improper.

For starters, the federal tax code does not have a minimum disbursement requirement for what are called “public charities,” a category of 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Churches are public charities by default.

There is a requirement that all 501(c)(3) entities carry out charitable activities that are “commensurate in scope with their resources.” This ostensibly means that a charity cannot merely accumulate assets and remain a charity. The law does not set a fixed threshold for this though, and the IRS instead takes it on a case-by-case basis, applying the commensurate test very rarely. But, even by the whistleblower’s own admission, each year the Church is in fact spending $6 Billion a year on its tax-exempt activities.

There is an interesting wrinkle in this case, though, that the whistleblower’s claim relies on. Ensign Peak Advisors, the legal entity where the LDS Church holds these investments, is exempt as a separate 501(c)(3) Supporting Organization. (Notably, the whistleblower also disputes this status, but without directly addressing how Ensign fails to meet the legal definition. He instead focuses on the “spirit” of the status.) As a Supporting Organization, Ensign is an independent nonprofit. The whistleblower claims that this requires Ensign to pass the commensurate test all on its own – and not as part of the larger whole of the Church.

But according to the IRS’s own definition, Ensign is also an “integrated auxiliary” managed by the Church, a legal treatment that combines their activities in certain ways. This is a critical detail that the whistleblower report only briefly mentions and seems to misunderstand.

If the Church directly held these investments, it would likely pass any legal tests without concern. Does it make a legal difference if Ensign does the investing for the Church as an integrated auxiliary? This difference—a relatively narrow and technical one—has never been questioned by the IRS or a court, according to Sam Brunson, a Latter-day Saint and Loyola law professor who specializes in tax-exempt organizations.

After looking at the facts and allegations involved, Peter J. Reilly, a non-Latter-day Saint CPA and tax specialist, observed in Forbes that “Ensign is not a private foundation. It is an integrated auxiliary of a church. And there is nothing in the tax law that prevents churches from accumulating wealth.” Reilly reached out to Paul Streckfus, another tax expert who runs a trusted publication focusing on tax-exempt organizations. He too concluded that the “matter does not merit IRS attention.”

So the EPA appears to be entirely lawful, as evidenced by the expert assessments above, and also by the fact that the "whistleblower" blew his whistle several years ago, yet the IRS has not done anything with his "report."

Also, "even by the whistleblower’s own admission, each year the Church is in fact spending $6 Billion a year on its tax-exempt activities."  And the Brethren ain't getting rich of EPA investments.  And EPA foregoes investing in morally problematic ventures.  And the Church, as of 2020, "{has} doubled its humanitarian spending over the past five years and now annually provides nearly $1 billion in combined humanitarian and welfare aid" and anticipates that "{these expenditures} are going to increase fast."

But for our critics, none of this matters.  Nor will it ever matter.  Cue Loren Allred's power ballad!  

More from the above article:

Quote

Is saving $1 Billion a year for a “rainy day” fund wrong or abnormal?

What the whistleblower appears to be concerned about is the fact that the Church is investing $1 billion a year in an endowment fund and not distributing it or the interest earned. But, is building a reserve endowment illegal or wrong?

Maintaining large financial reserves is actually a common and encouraged practice among nonprofits and governments. Two similarly large organizations show somewhat how the IRS might consider the case. Both The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Harvard University operate with endowments of around $50 billion, roughly ten times their annual budget. The IRS has not considered either one to be in violation of the commensurate test.

If the whistleblower numbers are correct, The Church of Jesus Christ is maintaining an endowment equal to about 16 times their annual budget, a ratio that is within typical practices for endowed 501(c)(3)s. Many private foundations annually distribute the minimum 5% of their total assets, making endowments equal to 20 times an annual budget very common. So, this practice of keeping a sizeable financial reserve is not likely to violate the commensurate test.

I am curious as to your thoughts on this.  The Church's "endowment" is "equal to about 16 times their annual budget," which is apparently more than the ratio seen used by The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Harvard University (10:1), but less than the ratio used by "{m}any private foundations" (20:1).

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

And how much of that billion comes from members annually?  If that include fast offering will then the members are funding that annually

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

You apparently want to divvy up what I see as a cohesive and unified whole.  You apparently differentiate "the Church" from its "members."  I don't.  I am part of the Church, as are its millions of other members.  Members donate a portion of that personal income to the Church, which holds it in trust.  All of the money held in trust by the Church is either donated to it or derived from for-profit endeavors and investments, the seed money for which originated from . . . the members.

Members of the Church donate Fast Offerings to the ward.  The bishop of the ward distributes that money to help those in need (rent, car repairs, etc.).  Do you divvy up Fast Offerings as being from "the members" but not from the Church?  If so, how?  And why?

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

and none is coming out of income from EPA. 

Again, you are divvying up things here in a way that I do not accept. 

Per the above article, Ensign Peak is "an integrated auxiliary, the investment arm of the Church."  "Of the Church" is the operative phrase here.

Per reality, Fast Offerings come from the members of the Church.  Again, "of the Church" is the operative phrase here.

The annual expenditures of the Church have been variously characterized as about $6 billion per year on its tax-exempt activities, and as "nearly $1 billion in combined humanitarian and welfare aid" and anticipates that "{these expenditures} are going to increase fast."   Are the cumulatively considerable local-level expenditures from Fast Offerings included in the foregoing amounts?  How about commodities orders at Deseret Industries and food orders and bishop warehouses?  Are the expenditures associated with these philanthropic efforts included in the foregoing amounts?

I don't know.  But more to the point, I don't really care whether they are or not.  Whether a tax-exempt expenditure is attributable to "the Church" or one of its entities (Latter-Day Saint Charities (which per the above article "has spent $2 billion since 1984 on a wide range of projects including clean water, refugee assistance, and disaster relief"), BYU / BYU-I / BYU-H (which have provided heavily-subsidized educations to hundreds of thousands of students), it's all po-tay-to, po-tah-to.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

In fact we know EPA has spent $0 for humanitarian and welfare aid.  $0. 

That's like saying "In fact we know the Relief Society of the Ephraim 1st Ward has spent $0 for humanitarian and welfare aid.  $0."

Well!  Quite an indictment of those selfish women!  

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

As for supporting congregation that is all funded on annual income from the members. So no EPA $ are used for any of this.

By "EPA $" you are referring to the Church's "$," right?  EPA is, again, "an integrated auxiliary, the investment arm of the Church." 

"Of the Church" being the operative phrase.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

4. Weathering Hard Economic Times: ...

And I have noted numerous times I believe the church should plan for this. The main question is how much does it need?  Is $50 billion to much or to little?  $100 billion?  Personally IMO I would say 2 to 3 time annual operating expenses is more than a enough for a Church or other NFP. So say $20 to $25 billion.

Okay.  Where are you getting this figure?  Anything beyond "Personally IMO"?

Again, per the above article, the Church is middle-of-the-back vis-à-vis the reserves-to-annual-budget ratio.  Bill Gates and Harvard use a 10:1 ratio, the Church's is 16:1, and "{m}any private foundations" use a 20:1 ratio.

I suspect you will dispute this reasoning by differentiating between "the Church" and EPA.  This is, after all, the only way you can justify risible and provocative assertions such as "we know EPA has spent $0 for humanitarian and welfare aid.  $0."

But outside the relentlessly-hostile-to-the-Church circle of critics, taking an "any approach that makes the Mormons come across as terrible as possible" view of things is not really fair or reasonable.

The EPA doesn't spend money on "humanitarian and welfare aid," but then, neither does my ward's Elders Quorum or Primary.  So what?  We are all part of "the Church."

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

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.

Meh.  Straw man and personal opinion.  Not worth addressing.

I think it's very much worth addressing.  In fact, that is perhaps the crux of the OP.  In your view, the Church should keep a reserve of X, and give away anything in excess of X, right?  But you don't care about how that over-X amount of money is spent?  You don't care where it goes?  You don't care if it effectively addresses humanitarian objectives?  What are you saying here?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 11, 2023 by smac97

[Teancum]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think it is quite relevant.  The narrative you and yours are peddling is that the Church is motivated by greed, that its primary objective is to make money, and so on.  As one fellow put it: "The Church's primary mission is to increase the size of its investment portfolio ... that is its biggest priority.  By far."  I noted this in December:

Nor are the Brethren or the Church reasonably compared to Ebenezer Scrooge, as Analytics has repeatedly done (here, here, here) (and if that comparison was not sufficiently on-the-nose, he has also characterized the Brethren as "miserly"), as well as "SeekingUnderstanding" (here).  Analytics has also characterized the Church as being "primarily a giant hedge fund that happens to also have a religious operation," and has compared it to a hypothetical "Pharaoh {who} starved his own people now because he wanted to save up food for himself for a hypothetical 20-year famine."  He has also said that it is "obscene" for the Church to look to and plan for its long-term existence.

So, yeah.  Both explicit and implicit accusations are going on here.  

You responded:

I'm tempted to quote a guy: "Meh.  Straw man and personal opinion.  Not worth addressing."  But I won't. 

What "such organizations" are you referencing here?  Analytics regularly cites to CharityWatch, which expressly states that it "do{es} not report on churches, synagogues, mosques, political action committees (PACs), fraternal clubs, colleges, or local institutions such as hospitals and museums." 

So what sort of objective and apples-to-apples criteria/metrics are you using to reach your "horribly excessive" conclusion?

Candidly, I think you are.  See above.

And yet the narrative is that the Brethren "are so greedy that they would rather lie to keep the money rolling in."

It ABSOLUTELY has bearing on how the Church is and/or should be managing its finances (upper-case shouting is a thing now, I guess).

And yet, it's not treated "like a given."  The Church has been characterized as being "primarily a giant hedge fund that happens to also have a religious operation."  As having the "hoarding" of "wealth" as an end unto itself.  But if that were the case, EPA would look to maximize its investments by including problematic industries.  And yet . . . it doesn't.

This coming from the same fellow asserting that the Church has $500 billion.

I'm reminded of the lyrics to a song from The Greatest Showman:

All the shine of a thousand spotlights
All the stars we steal from the night sky
Will never be enough
Never be enough
Towers of gold are still too little
These hands could hold the world, but it'll
Never be enough
Never be enough
For me

Never, never
Never, never
Never, for me
For me...

In this, the Age of Perpetual Outrage, there will always be someone insisting that someone else is doing something wrong.

For our critics, nothing we do will ever be enough.  They just shift the goalposts, present an undefined demand for "more," and then vilify the Church when it fails to immediately hop to. 

Again, I'm tempted to quote a guy: "Meh.  Straw man and personal opinion.  Not worth addressing."

I think this treatment of the topic at hand addresses your opinion: The $100 Billion ‘Mormon Church’ Story: A Contextual Analysis

An excerpt:

So the EPA appears to be entirely lawful, as evidenced by the expert assessments above, and also by the fact that the "whistleblower" blew his whistle several years ago, yet the IRS has not done anything with his "report."

Also, "even by the whistleblower’s own admission, each year the Church is in fact spending $6 Billion a year on its tax-exempt activities."  And the Brethren ain't getting rich of EPA investments.  And EPA foregoes investing in morally problematic ventures.  And the Church, as of 2020, "{has} doubled its humanitarian spending over the past five years and now annually provides nearly $1 billion in combined humanitarian and welfare aid" and anticipates that "{these expenditures} are going to increase fast."

But for our critics, none of this matters.  Nor will it ever matter.  Cue Loren Allred's power ballad!  

More from the above article:

I am curious as to your thoughts on this.  The Church's "endowment" is "equal to about 16 times their annual budget," which is apparently more than the ratio seen used by The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Harvard University (10:1), but less than the ratio used by "{m}any private foundations" (20:1).

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

You apparently want to divvy up what I see as a cohesive and unified whole.  You apparently differentiate "the Church" from its "members."  I don't.  I am part of the Church.  We all are.  All of the money held in trust by the Church is either donated to it or derived from for-profit endeavors and investments, the seed money for which originated from . . . the members.

Members of the Church donate Fast Offerings to the ward.  The bishop of the ward distributes that money to help those in need (rent, car repairs, etc.).  Do you divvy up Fast Offerings as being from "the members" but not from the Church?  If so, how?  And why?

Again, you are divvying up things here in a way that I do not accept. 

Per the above article, Ensign Peak is "an integrated auxiliary, the investment arm of the Church."  "Of the Church" is the operative phrase here.

Per reality, Fast Offerings come from the members of the Church.  Again, "of the Church" is the operative phrase here.

The annual expenditures of the Church have been variously characterized as about $6 billion per year on its tax-exempt activities, and as "nearly $1 billion in combined humanitarian and welfare aid" and anticipates that "{these expenditures} are going to increase fast."   Are the cumulatively considerable local-level expenditures from Fast Offerings included in the foregoing amounts?  How about commodities orders at Deseret Industries and food orders and bishop warehouses?  Are the expenditures associated with these philanthropic efforts included in the foregoing amounts?

I don't know.  But more to the point, I don't really care whether they are or not.  Whether a tax-exempt expenditure is attributable to "the Church" or one of its entities (Latter-Day Saint Charities (which per the above article "has spent $2 billion since 1984 on a wide range of projects including clean water, refugee assistance, and disaster relief"), BYU / BYU-I / BYU-H (which have provided heavily-subsidized educations to hundreds of thousands of students), it's all po-tay-to, po-tah-to.

That's like saying "In fact we know the Relief Society of the Ephraim 1st Ward has spent $0 for humanitarian and welfare aid.  $0."

Well!  Quite an indictment of those selfish women!  

By "EPA $" you are referring to the Church's "$," right?  EPA is, again, "an integrated auxiliary, the investment arm of the Church." 

"Of the Church" being the operative phrase.

Okay.  Where are you getting this figure?  Anything beyond "Personally IMO"?

Again, per the above article, the Church is middle-of-the-back vis-à-vis the reserves-to-annual-budget ratio.  Bill Gates and Harvard use a 10:1 ratio, the Church's is 16:1, and "{m}any private foundations" use a 20:1 ratio.

I suspect you will dispute this reasoning by differentiating between "the Church" and EPA.  This is, after all, the only way you can justify risible and provocative assertions such as "we know EPA has spent $0 for humanitarian and welfare aid.  $0."

But outside the relentlessly-hostile-to-the-Church circle of critics, taking an "any approach that makes the Mormons come across as terrible as possible" view of things is not really fair or reasonable.

The EPA doesn't spend money on "humanitarian and welfare aid," but then, neither does my ward's Elders Quorum or Primary.  So what?  We are all part of "the Church."

I think it's very much worth addressing.  In fact, that is perhaps the crux of the OP.  In your view, the Church should keep a reserve of X, and give away anything in excess of X, right?  But you don't care about how that over-X amount of money is spent?  You don't care where it goes?  You don't care if it effectively addresses humanitarian objectives?  What are you saying here?

Thanks,

-Smac

Dude

 

You are so off the wall on this with straw man arguments and an over the top persecution complex that I am not sure it is worth my time  to respond further. Busy right now. I have  job and can't respond to your lengthy comments right now.  Do you have a job or is this your job?  Based on your long posts here I wonder what you do all day. Your posts must take an enormous amount of time to put together. I may try later but not sure it is is worth it.

Edited January 11, 2023 by Teancum

[The Nehor]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

First, “cancel culture” is a stupid buzzword used by whiners who feel no one listens to them. It is like a toddler throwing a tantrum over not getting enough attention and should be treated with the same level of concern.

Second, ad hominem doesn’t apply to not trusting someone because they are a liar. Ad hominem is a unrelated attack on character. Someone’s credibility is not an ad hominem or a non sequiter. Trying to make it one is itself a non sequiter. So congrats on the hypocrisy I guess.

Third, he admitted he was lying very late in the game. He was still repeating it after it was discredited. The man doesn’t care about truth or correcting errors unless it becomes blatantly obvious and embarrassing like in this case. No one should believe him.

Fourth, it was a widespread rumor started by other serial liars. It was ridiculous on its face and not one of these idiots fact-checked it or even self-reflected about how absurd it was. It was a made up weapon in the “culture war” so it would be used. Why do you listen to these deceitful idiots? Why do you repeat them? Why do you debase yourself like this? Doesn’t being lied to piss you off?

Fifth, it isn’t serious grounds to consider anything. It is secondhand gossip from a dubious source. If you were really interested in the homelessness problem why not look at the budget and its effects? Study the programs they are using and try to determine the net benefits of the programs? Nah, that requires work. A known liar quoting some rando and telling you what you want to hear is much easier to demagogue about.

Edited January 11, 2023 by The Nehor

[smac97]

I'm really trying to understand the mindset that differentiates "the Church" into its constituent parts, and then vilifies "the Church" as a whole by pointing to one of its particular components (the EPA) and throwing a hissy fit because it is not itself, in its own name, distributing money to humanitarian/welfare/philanthropic efforts.

I currently work for two companies as their in-house counsel, one is based on a fixed-number-of-hours per week, and the other on an as-needed hourly basis.  If I were a "Legal Department," I would not really be seen as a "profit center" for these companies.  I consumer resources (by being paid).  I help the companies avoid potential and actualized risks of loss (by defending them in legal proceedings, working on regulatory compliance matters, etc.).  But I don't generate revenue.  Other portions of these companies, however, do generate revenue.  In one company, there is a Sales Department that brings in clients.  In the other company, there a "Property Management Department" which takes in rents from tenants.  

So it is, by way of analogy, with the Church.  It has various departments, or own various entities, some of which are expressly for-profit endeavors (see, e.g., here), some of which are both revenue-generating and revenue-consuming (BYU, for example, is heavily subsidized, but it still brings in some revenue), and some are exclusively revenue-consuming (Church History, Welfare, Missionary, Family History, etc.).

So where and how does Ensign Peak Advisors ("EPA") fit into all this?  See this article:

Quote

In an age inundated with headlines, the American public has perhaps become accustomed to sighing and shaking their heads with reports of corruption. So, when the headlines pointed at the Church of Jesus Christ this week (“Mormon Church accused of stockpiling billions, avoiding paying taxes” or ”Mormon Church has misled members on $100 billion tax-exempt investment fund, whistleblower alleges”), the takeaway for many readers was likely clear-cut.  

But, the story beyond the headline merits a closer look. As you may have read, a whistleblower alleged this week that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ investment arm, Ensign Peak Advisors, potentially violated tax law by building a $100 billion investment fund, with minimal or zero “charitable” distributions. The whistleblower’s report also alleges that the fund made two “illegal” distributions. 

Are the Church’s reserve funds illegal or somehow evading taxes?

For tax purposes, as an integrated auxiliary, the investment arm of the Church, Ensign Peak Advisors, is under no obligation to make minimum distributions. The allegations appear to stem from the whistleblower’s misunderstanding of tax law. For unknown reasons, the whistleblower apparently didn’t hire an attorney or a tax expert to help write this report.

One can only assume this is why so many of the conclusions in the whistleblower report diverge from the law. Not only does the whistleblower report misconstrue the definition of “charitable,” but it also applies something called the commensurate test (explained below) in a way never before applied by the IRS, and it fails to give enough evidence to demonstrate that two alleged investment disbursements were in fact improper.

For starters, the federal tax code does not have a minimum disbursement requirement for what are called “public charities,” a category of 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Churches are public charities by default.

There is a requirement that all 501(c)(3) entities carry out charitable activities that are “commensurate in scope with their resources.” This ostensibly means that a charity cannot merely accumulate assets and remain a charity. The law does not set a fixed threshold for this though, and the IRS instead takes it on a case-by-case basis, applying the commensurate test very rarely. But, even by the whistleblower’s own admission, each year the Church is in fact spending $6 Billion a year on its tax-exempt activities.

There is an interesting wrinkle in this case, though, that the whistleblower’s claim relies on. Ensign Peak Advisors, the legal entity where the LDS Church holds these investments, is exempt as a separate 501(c)(3) Supporting Organization. (Notably, the whistleblower also disputes this status, but without directly addressing how Ensign fails to meet the legal definition. He instead focuses on the “spirit” of the status.) As a Supporting Organization, Ensign is an independent nonprofit. The whistleblower claims that this requires Ensign to pass the commensurate test all on its own – and not as part of the larger whole of the Church.

But according to the IRS’s own definition, Ensign is also an “integrated auxiliary” managed by the Church, a legal treatment that combines their activities in certain ways. This is a critical detail that the whistleblower report only briefly mentions and seems to misunderstand.

If the Church directly held these investments, it would likely pass any legal tests without concern. Does it make a legal difference if Ensign does the investing for the Church as an integrated auxiliary? This difference—a relatively narrow and technical one—has never been questioned by the IRS or a court, according to Sam Brunson, a Latter-day Saint and Loyola law professor who specializes in tax-exempt organizations.

After looking at the facts and allegations involved, Peter J. Reilly, a non-Latter-day Saint CPA and tax specialist, observed in Forbes that “Ensign is not a private foundation. It is an integrated auxiliary of a church. And there is nothing in the tax law that prevents churches from accumulating wealth.” Reilly reached out to Paul Streckfus, another tax expert who runs a trusted publication focusing on tax-exempt organizations. He too concluded that the “matter does not merit IRS attention.”

Point 1: The Church maintains EPA as its "investment arm."  EPA invests and generates revenue for the Church.  

Point 2: The EPA's revenue is not taxed in the same way as the Church's various tax-paying entities are.  This is, apparently, entirely legal.

Point 3: Critics think that the Church ought to be distributing "more" of the funds generated from EPA's holdings.  How much "more" is seldom specified or explained.

Point 4: These critics are not, I think, grousing about the Church's various tax-paying entities, apparently because . . . they pay taxes?  

Point 5: The money derived from EPA's investments is apparently being characterized as distinguishable from other monies coming into the Church, apparently because . . . it is not taxed?

Point 6: The money derived from donations to the Church - tithes, fast offerings (?), donations to LDS Philanthropies, etc. - are also not taxed.

Point 7: Critics are fine with Point 6 (charitable donations from members not being taxed) but are unhappy with Point 5 (EPA $ not being taxed) because . . . why?  This grievance is apparently not on the basis that is unlawful (though some have tried mightily to make it appear so).  Instead, it appears to be based mostly or entirely on the notion that the EPA $ is "too much."

Point 8: As I noted previously, the Church is middle-of-the-back vis-à-vis the reserves-to-annual-budget ratio.  Bill Gates and Harvard use a 10:1 ratio, the Church's is 16:1, and "{m}any private foundations" use a 20:1 ratio.

Point 9: I think critics are avoiding/ignoring Point 8 by implicitly differentiating EPA as distinct from "the Church," and then complaining that EPA "has spent $0 for humanitarian and welfare aid."

Point 10: To me, the foregoing implicit differentiation is . . . weird.  How is the foregoing criticism (that EPA "has spent $0 for humanitarian and welfare aid") distinguishable from the illustrative example I provided earlier ("we know the Relief Society of the Ephraim 1st Ward has spent $0 for humanitarian and welfare aid")?  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[smac97]

44 minutes ago, Teancum said:

You are so off the wall on this with straw man arguments and an over the top persecution complex that I am not sure it is worth my time to respond further.

As you like.  There's no rush.

I think people like you constantly resorting to allegations of a "persecution complex" are pretty weird.  It comes across as a thought-terminating cliché ("a form of loaded language, often passing as folk wisdom, intended to end an argument and quell cognitive dissonance").  After all, a "persecution complex" is "a common type of delusional condition in which the affected person believes that harm is going to occur to oneself by a persecutor, despite a clear lack of evidence."  From Wikipedia:

Quote

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) enumerates seven types of delusions and the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) defines fifteen types of delusions both including persecutory delusion. They state that it's a common type of delusion that includes the belief that the person or someone close to the person is being maliciously treated, this encompasses thoughts that oneself has been drugged, spied upon, harmed, mocked, cheated, conspired against, persecuted, harassed and so on and may procure justice by making reports, taking action or responding violently.

The problem, though, is that I am not deluded.  There really are people who are actively opposed to and criticizing and working the Church.  There really are people out there attempting to do harm to the Church.  To its reputation, its legal and tax status, its physical structures, its relationship with its members and society in general, and so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think it is quite relevant.  The narrative you and yours are peddling is that the Church is motivated by greed...

I've never said nor implied that.

My actual beliefs is that the Church is hoarding money for the same reason it denied blacks the priesthood: fear and a lack of vision. Doing something that's actually productive with the money in some sort of a religious or charitable sense is difficult and scary. On the one hand they know they need to extract the money from the membership, but they don't know what to do with it once they have it. If they have any ideas they don't dare implement them. So they fall back on their secular experience as business leaders and build a business empire. It's comfortable. 

Your continued accusations that I (or anybody else) think the Church's hoarding behavior is motivated by greed / avarice / self-dealing is a ridiculous strawman. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Nor are the Brethren or the Church reasonably compared to Ebenezer Scrooge, as Analytics has repeatedly done (here, here, here)

The point of the scrooge analogy is to counter your assertion that the apostles not "living large" is somehow proof that they aren't motivated to make the Church itself wealthy. Scrooge didn't live large either, but until his fateful Christmas, he thought having money was much more important than donating to the less fortunate. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

(and if that comparison was not sufficiently on-the-nose, he has also characterized the Brethren as "miserly"), as well as "SeekingUnderstanding" (here).  Analytics has also characterized the Church as being "primarily a giant hedge fund that happens to also have a religious operation,"

Somebody once said, "For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." Do you remember who that was?

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

He has also said that it is "obscene" for the Church to look to and plan for its long-term existence.

No, I said the idea that the Church needs to stockpile hundreds of billions of dollars to ensure its long-term existence is "obscene."

I suppose if the Church defines "long-term existence" as the ability to bring in tens of billions of dollars in revenue every year, even if all the tithe payers in the Church leave the faith then yes, having hundreds of billions of dollars in commercial assets is important for its long-term existence. But your implication that the Church couldn't make it if its survival rested solely on the faithfulness of its members proves my point about what the primary mission of the Church really is.

My exact words were: "If the Church has a moderate growth of tithing revenue of 3% per year for the next 50 years, and if the stock market and real estate market grows at a moderate 5% per year over that time period, and if the Church continues to operate on 90% of its tithing revenue, then in 50 years it will have about $1.6 trillion in assets.

Why does it need so much money in 50 years?

I'd really like an answer to that question. Did the Church strategically decide that it needs $1.6 trillion in the bank by 2072? If so, what is the reason? 

Or was I right when I went on to said the following?

The Church isn't thinking about 50 years from now. The truth is, they have way more money than they know what to do with. Accumulating more money makes the problem worse, not better. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

So what sort of objective and apples-to-apples criteria/metrics are you using to reach your "horribly excessive" conclusion?

The basic financial principles articulated by Charity Watch do in fact apply to churches, even if Charity Watch chooses not to monitor them. 

I've also quoted resources that articulate the same principles in the context of churches, and you ignore those, too.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

And yet, it's not treated "like a given."  The Church has been characterized as being "primarily a giant hedge fund that happens to also have a religious operation."  As having the "hoarding" of "wealth" as an end unto itself.  But if that were the case, EPA would look to maximize its investments by including problematic industries.  And yet . . . it doesn't.

That is the weakest argument I've ever heard. Warren Buffet doesn't invest in technology, but that doesn't somehow prove that maximizing wealth isn't his primary objective. A person or organization can have the primary objective of hoarding wealth and still do so within basic parameters of not investing in anything illegal or in Coca-Cola. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

In this, the Age of Perpetual Outrage, there will always be someone insisting that someone else is doing something wrong.

For our critics, nothing we do will ever be enough.  They just shift the goalposts, present an undefined demand for "more," and then vilify the Church when it fails to immediately hop to. 

When you can't address an actual criticism, the predictable fallback is to say, "for our critics, nothing we do will ever be enough." 

I'll take this as a concession that I won the argument and that you can't address my actual points.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

So the EPA appears to be entirely lawful, as evidenced by the expert assessments above, and also by the fact that the "whistleblower" blew his whistle several years ago, yet the IRS has not done anything with his "report."

"The IRS is woefully understaffed and will miss about $600 billion in uncollected taxes this year as it grapples with technology built before humans landed on the moon, according to Deputy Treasury Department Secretary Wally Adeyemo."

https://www.npr.org/2022/04/18/1093380881/on-tax-day-the-treasury-department-urges-for-more-funding-to-the-irs

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

  Cue Loren Allred's power ballad!  

More from the above article:

I am curious as to your thoughts on this.  The Church's "endowment" is "equal to about 16 times their annual budget," which is apparently more than the ratio seen used by The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Harvard University (10:1), but less than the ratio used by "{m}any private foundations" (20:1).

Endowments spend most of their investment income to fund the mission of the endowment.

Ensign Peak Advisors uses 100% of its investment income to increase the size of its investment portfolio.

If Ensign Peak Advisors is an endowment, it is an endowment dedicated to one and only one purpose: increasing the size of the hoard.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Per the above article, Ensign Peak is "an integrated auxiliary, the investment arm of the Church."  "Of the Church" is the operative phrase here.

Ironically, the only reason I can think of for Ensign Peak to be created in the first place was to obfuscate the Church's financial statements by hiding most of its assets and hiding most of its actual income. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Again, per the above article, the Church is middle-of-the-back vis-à-vis the reserves-to-annual-budget ratio.  Bill Gates and Harvard use a 10:1 ratio, the Church's is 16:1, and "{m}any private foundations" use a 20:1 ratio.

In 2021, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) received about $9.4 billion from interest income and contributions from the investment income in a backing trust. Their total expenses were $5.3 billion. So of the $9.4 billion they made in investment income, they spent 56% to fund their mission. 

Did the Church spend more or less than 56% of its investment income to further its mission? It depends on what the church's primary mission is. If the mission of the Church has something to do with religion, it spent 0% of its investment income furthering its mission. But if the mission of the Church is to increase the size of its investment portfolio, then it spent 100% of its investment income on its primary mission.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

In your view, the Church should keep a reserve of X, and give away anything in excess of X, right?  But you don't care about how that over-X amount of money is spent?  You don't care where it goes?  You don't care if it effectively addresses humanitarian objectives?  What are you saying here?

One very good point the Aaron Miller article makes is this:

And here’s the paradox likely unknown to most people: giving money away effectively is generally much harder than earning it. The problem is that people assume that all giving is good giving when that is not remotely true.

I completely agree with that, and it gets to the very heart of my actual point. Including tithing and investment income, the Church only spends about 40% of its total income on "effective humanitarian objectives," including religious ones. It uses the remaining 60% of its total income to expand its business empire and grow its stock portfolio. But exponentially increasing the Church's ability to generate income it doesn't know how to spend makes the problem exponentially worse, not better.

The Church shouldn't give a million dollars to every go-fund-me campaign until it runs out of money. Of course it shouldn't. But it shouldn't hoard money either.

If I were in charge, I'd make tithing optional and instruct members to build up their own personal retirement accounts. I'd make missions free and BYU free. And I'd give college scholarships to Saints who can't make it to BYU. If the Church's wealth really belongs to the members of the Church, use it to bless their lives. That's my vision of what I would do.

The Church won't do that for a couple of reasons. First, they are afraid of making big changes. Second, they think belonging to the Church ought to be a sacrifice. Fine.

So what is their vision?

My assertion is that they don't have a vision, so the default effect is that they use most of their financial resources to increase the size of their corporate for-profit empire. 

Edited January 11, 2023 by Analytics

[Analytics]

To clear up any possible misconceptions...

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Point 1: The Church maintains EPA as its "investment arm."  EPA invests and generates revenue for the Church.  

Yes. And the majority of the Church's total revenue is used to increase the size of EPA's financial assets.

Matthew 6:21.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Point 2: The EPA's revenue is not taxed in the same way as the Church's various tax-paying entities are.  This is, apparently, entirely legal.

This point is in dispute. Further, I would argue that if EPA's tax returns are entirely legal, the tax law ought to be changed.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Point 3: Critics think that the Church ought to be distributing "more" of the funds generated from EPA's holdings.  How much "more" is seldom specified or explained.

I believe that EPA ought to be taxed as a private foundation. 

In short, the U.S. government expects foundations to use their assets to benefit society and it enforces this through section 4942 of the Internal Revenue Code, which requires private foundations to distribute 5% of the fair market value of their endowment each year for charitable purposes. 

https://pfs-llc.net/resource/the-5-rule-explained/#:~:text=In short%2C the U.S. government,each year for charitable purposes.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Point 4: These critics are not, I think, grousing about the Church's various tax-paying entities, apparently because . . . they pay taxes?  

If a for-profit real estate investment trust is paying its fair share of taxes, why would anybody complain? 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Point 5: The money derived from EPA's investments is apparently being characterized as distinguishable from other monies coming into the Church, apparently because . . . it is not taxed?

EPA is in fact a purported public charity in its own right. Even though people argue it is an integrated auxiliary of the Church, it's assets and income are not shown on the Church's own financial records. This has the effect of obfuscating the Church's true wealth, which seems to be the only reason EPA was created in the first place.

In any event, as a separate legal entity, EPA's financial statements are distinguishable from the Church's financial statements. EPA can donate money to the Church when the Church needs it to build malls or bail out insurance companies, and the Church can donate money to EPA when it has excess revenue. But the investment income of assets owned by EPA are distinguishable from assets owned by the Church because they are owned by the legal entity known as EPA.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Point 6: The money derived from donations to the Church - tithes, fast offerings (?), donations to LDS Philanthropies, etc. - are also not taxed.

Correct.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Point 7: Critics are fine with Point 6 (charitable donations from members not being taxed) but are unhappy with Point 5 (EPA $ not being taxed) because . . . why?  This grievance is apparently not on the basis that is unlawful (though some have tried mightily to make it appear so).  Instead, it appears to be based mostly or entirely on the notion that the EPA $ is "too much."

According to the whistleblower report, the Church proper has about $7.3 billion in cash that is owned by the Church but managed by EPA. That is an appropriate amount of money for the Church's rainy day fund. I don't have a grievance with that because it is appropriate. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Point 8: As I noted previously, the Church is middle-of-the-back vis-à-vis the reserves-to-annual-budget ratio.  Bill Gates and Harvard use a 10:1 ratio, the Church's is 16:1, and "{m}any private foundations" use a 20:1 ratio.

This is misleading because it is comparing church expenses funded by tithing to charity expenses funded by endowments; these other organizations use most of their investment income for their charitable purposes. In contrast, EPA uses 100% of its investment income to grow the size of its asset portfolio.

Furthermore, these other endowments were strategically set up to fund needed things into perpetuity. In contrast, EPA was set up because the Church has extra money that it doesn't know what to do with and hence by default saves it for a hypothetical "rainy day."

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Point 9: I think critics are avoiding/ignoring Point 8 by implicitly differentiating EPA as distinct from "the Church," and then complaining that EPA "has spent $0 for humanitarian and welfare aid."

EPA is a distinct legal entity from the Church. I believe it was created for the specific purpose of concealing how much money the Church has. Why do you think it was created as a separate legal entity?

Given the fact that the legal entity EPA doesn't spend any money on charitable purposes, it's hard to imagine how it could be a public charity. And if it isn't a public charity, it can't be an integrated auxiliary.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Point 10: To me, the foregoing implicit differentiation is . . . weird.  How is the foregoing criticism (that EPA "has spent $0 for humanitarian and welfare aid") distinguishable from the illustrative example I provided earlier ("we know the Relief Society of the Ephraim 1st Ward has spent $0 for humanitarian and welfare aid")?  

If, for the sake of argument we grant that EPA really is an integrated auxiliary, and thereby combine the financial statements of EPA with the financial statements of the Church and with the financial statements of the other Church-owned or Church affiliated entities (e.g. Property Reserve, AgReserve, Farmland Reserve, Bonneville Holdings, Beneficial Financial Group, etc.,) then we'd see that most of the Church's total income goes towards purchasing for-profit businesses and financial assets. If there was a strategy for doing this we could evaluate that, but there isn't a strategy. It is just done by default.

Taxation issues aside, the Church can do whatever it wants with its money. But the fact that it uses most of its money to buy for-profit businesses so that it can have more profits and thereby buy more for-profit businesses is something that ought to be disclosed to members and investigators.

[Mark Beesley]

21 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

My only observation is that if you are unaware of the long hours which a teacher dedicates to preparing and teaching and reviewing, etc., etc., well, then, I don’t know what to say.

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said:

My only observation is that if you are unaware of the long hours which a teacher dedicates to preparing and teaching and reviewing, etc., etc., well, then, I don’t know what to say.

My sister and daughter in law are teachers, I practically lived at elementary schools when my kids were young becoming good friends with many teachers including listening to their trials and trying to help give them a bit more free time, my husband is a professor…so yes, I know the long hours a teacher puts in.

I also know a couple of wanna be full time entertainers. 
 

I am in no way equating the two jobs and some entertainment is more detrimental to society than uplifting, but think of the work ballet dancers and many singers put into their craft and preparing their bodies and skills from long before they become professionals.  Preparation for entertainment is usually much, much longer than the performance. 

Edited January 11, 2023 by Calm

[Mark Beesley]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

My sister and daughter in law are teachers, I practically lived at elementary schools when my kids were young becoming good friends with many teachers including listening to their trials and trying to help give them a bit more free time, my husband is a professor…so yes, I know the long hours a teacher puts in.

I also know a couple of wanna be full time entertainers. 
 

I am in no way equating the two jobs and some entertainment is more detrimental to society than uplifting, but think of the work ballet dancers and many singers put into their craft and preparing their bodies and skills from long before they become professionals.  Preparation for entertainment is usually much, much longer than the performance. 

I don’t want to derail the whole topic . . . or maybe I do. 😎 But I am not suggesting entertainers do not put in long hours. I am saying that the fact that we are willing to fund all forms of entertainment at the levels we do is indicative of what we value. Entertainment is important, but being entertained as opposed to entertaining oneself are entirely different things. Entertaining oneself encourages one to exercise their imagination and develop their own skills while being entertained requires none such activities.

Mammon has become the driving force on too many issues. Look at the discussion in this thread. The fact that the Church has billions of dollars in investment that it does not use exclusively and exhaustively for humanitarian purposes ignores the good the Church does. It also ignores the fact that we are led by a prophet, and I am pretty sure that he is more aware of the trials of the church is going to face in the next 20 to 30 years than any of you people.

These kinds of complaints, as well as the complaints about the churches membership disciplinary practices, and every other complaint about Church practices reminds me of the words of Alma.

“And now, my brethren, what have ye to say against this? I say unto you, if ye speak against it, it matters not, for the word of God must be fulfilled.” Alma 5:58

[Tacenda]

On 1/10/2023 at 9:28 PM, smac97 said:

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

A couple of my sons love him, ugh!

[Teancum]

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think it is quite relevant. 

Obviously.  You repeat it all the time. And if people were arguing that here you might have a good reason to repeat it.  But I am not. @Analyticsis not.  The discussion point is whether or not the church is accumulating to much wealth.  Not that the GAs are hoarding the wealth and living the high life.  Thus it us not relevant.

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

The narrative you and yours are peddling is that the Church is motivated by greed, that its primary objective is to make money, and so on.

No it is not. You are putting up a straw man.  I have constantly said that the church should prepare and have assets in reserve.  The question in how much.

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

  As one fellow put it: "The Church's primary mission is to increase the size of its investment portfolio ... that is its biggest priority.  By far."  I noted this in December:

Did I say that?

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

Nor are the Brethren or the Church reasonably compared to Ebenezer Scrooge, as Analytics has repeatedly done (here, here, here) (and if that comparison was not sufficiently on-the-nose, he has also characterized the Brethren as "miserly"), as well as "SeekingUnderstanding" (here).  Analytics has also characterized the Church as being "primarily a giant hedge fund that happens to also have a religious operation," and has compared it to a hypothetical "Pharaoh {who} starved his own people now because he wanted to save up food for himself for a hypothetical 20-year famine."  He has also said that it is "obscene" for the Church to look to and plan for its long-term existence.

You an argue with @Analyticson these points then.  My point has been what level of wealth accumulation is proper for a church that claims the be Jesus's church.

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

What "such organizations" are you referencing here?  Analytics regularly cites to CharityWatch, which expressly states that it "do{es} not report on churches, synagogues, mosques, political action committees (PACs), fraternal clubs, colleges, or local institutions such as hospitals and museums." 

Yes the ones @Analytics provided.  They seem like reasonable guidelines for Church's as well.  Why would they not be?

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

So what sort of objective and apples-to-apples criteria/metrics are you using to reach your "horribly excessive" conclusion?

See above.

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

Candidly, I think you are.  See above.

You are wrong.  But a straw mam is always fun to set up.

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

And yet the narrative is that the Brethren "are so greedy that they would rather lie to keep the money rolling in."

Again a straw man.

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

It ABSOLUTELY has bearing on how the Church is and/or should be managing its finances (upper-case shouting is a thing now, I guess).

It was not shouting it was emphasizing. I will bold next time.

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

And yet, it's not treated "like a given."  The Church has been characterized as being "primarily a giant hedge fund that happens to also have a religious operation."  As having the "hoarding" of "wealth" as an end unto itself.  But if that were the case, EPA would look to maximize its investments by including problematic industries.  And yet . . . it doesn't.

Oh come now.  There are plenty of things to invest without needing to invest in problematic industries.

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

This coming from the same fellow asserting that the Church has $500 billion.

Yes. EPA at 100 Billion and a lot of land.  And I said it was specualtion. Sheesh. 

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm reminded of the lyrics to a song from The Greatest Showman:

 

In this, the Age of Perpetual Outrage, there will always be someone insisting that someone else is doing something wrong.

And you will always find something to be offended about and persecuted about.

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

For our critics, nothing we do will ever be enough.  They just shift the goalposts, present an undefined demand for "more," and then vilify the Church when it fails to immediately hop to. 

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

Thank you for proving my point.

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think this treatment of the topic at hand addresses your opinion: The $100 Billion ‘Mormon Church’ Story: A Contextual Analysis

An excerpt:

So the EPA appears to be entirely lawful, as evidenced by the expert assessments above, and also by the fact that the "whistleblower" blew his whistle several years ago, yet the IRS has not done anything with his "report."

Also, "even by the whistleblower’s own admission, each year the Church is in fact spending $6 Billion a year on its tax-exempt activities."  And the Brethren ain't getting rich of EPA investments.  And EPA foregoes investing in morally problematic ventures.  And the Church, as of 2020, "{has} doubled its humanitarian spending over the past five years and now annually provides nearly $1 billion in combined humanitarian and welfare aid" and anticipates that "{these expenditures} are going to increase fast."

But for our critics, none of this matters.  Nor will it ever matter.  Cue Loren Allred's power ballad!  

All wonderful.  Yet it ignores the question I keep bringing up as do you.

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

More from the above article:

I am curious as to your thoughts on this.  The Church's "endowment" is "equal to about 16 times their annual budget," which is apparently more than the ratio seen used by The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Harvard University (10:1), but less than the ratio used by "{m}any private foundations" (20:1).

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Quite a bit actually.  Apparently the Gates are more generous that The Church of Jesus Christ and try to do more to alleviate human sufferings.  But if you want to benchmark against foundations that retain more of the wealth well more power to you.

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

You apparently want to divvy up what I see as a cohesive and unified whole.  You apparently differentiate "the Church" from its "members."  I don't.  I am part of the Church, as are its millions of other members.  Members donate a portion of that personal income to the Church, which holds it in trust.  All of the money held in trust by the Church is either donated to it or derived from for-profit endeavors and investments, the seed money for which originated from . . . the members.

Members of the Church donate Fast Offerings to the ward.  The bishop of the ward distributes that money to help those in need (rent, car repairs, etc.).  Do you divvy up Fast Offerings as being from "the members" but not from the Church?  If so, how?  And why?

Again, you are divvying up things here in a way that I do not accept. 

Ok the Church is its members.

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

Per the above article, Ensign Peak is "an integrated auxiliary, the investment arm of the Church."  "Of the Church" is the operative phrase here.

Per reality, Fast Offerings come from the members of the Church.  Again, "of the Church" is the operative phrase here.

The annual expenditures of the Church have been variously characterized as about $6 billion per year on its tax-exempt activities, and as "nearly $1 billion in combined humanitarian and welfare aid" and anticipates that "{these expenditures} are going to increase fast."   Are the cumulatively considerable local-level expenditures from Fast Offerings included in the foregoing amounts?  How about commodities orders at Deseret Industries and food orders and bishop warehouses?  Are the expenditures associated with these philanthropic efforts included in the foregoing amounts?

I don't know.  But more to the point, I don't really care whether they are or not.  Whether a tax-exempt expenditure is attributable to "the Church" or one of its entities (Latter-Day Saint Charities (which per the above article "has spent $2 billion since 1984 on a wide range of projects including clean water, refugee assistance, and disaster relief"), BYU / BYU-I / BYU-H (which have provided heavily-subsidized educations to hundreds of thousands of students), it's all po-tay-to, po-tah-to.

That's like saying "In fact we know the Relief Society of the Ephraim 1st Ward has spent $0 for humanitarian and welfare aid.  $0."

Well!  Quite an indictment of those selfish women!  

By "EPA $" you are referring to the Church's "$," right?  EPA is, again, "an integrated auxiliary, the investment arm of the Church." 

"Of the Church" being the operative phrase.

Okay.  Where are you getting this figure?  Anything beyond "Personally IMO"?

Again, per the above article, the Church is middle-of-the-back vis-à-vis the reserves-to-annual-budget ratio.  Bill Gates and Harvard use a 10:1 ratio, the Church's is 16:1, and "{m}any private foundations" use a 20:1 ratio.

I suspect you will dispute this reasoning by differentiating between "the Church" and EPA.  This is, after all, the only way you can justify risible and provocative assertions such as "we know EPA has spent $0 for humanitarian and welfare aid.  $0."

Well we do know  EPA has spent $0 on humanitarian aid.

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

But outside the relentlessly-hostile-to-the-Church circle of critics, taking an "any approach that makes the Mormons come across as terrible as possible" view of things is not really fair or reasonable.

You are really good at hyperbole.

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

The EPA doesn't spend money on "humanitarian and welfare aid," but then, neither does my ward's Elders Quorum or Primary.  So what?  We are all part of "the Church."

Well EPA has billions upon billion that is just sitting there.  The organizations you mention within the church do not.  One wonders why only the Church president initially know what was up with EPA.  Even Elder Packer was denied information on it.  Why is that do you think?

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think it's very much worth addressing.  In fact, that is perhaps the crux of the OP.  In your view, the Church should keep a reserve of X, and give away anything in excess of X, right?  But you don't care about how that over-X amount of money is spent?  You don't care where it goes?  You don't care if it effectively addresses humanitarian objectives?  What are you saying here?

Thanks,

-Smac

Of course I care where it might go.  

[Mark Beesley]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Obviously.  You repeat it all the time. And if people were arguing that here you might have a good reason to repeat it.  But I am not. @Analyticsis not.  The discussion point is whether or not the church is accumulating to much wealth.  Not that the GAs are hoarding the wealth and living the high life.  Thus it us not relevant.

No it is not. You are putting up a straw man.  I have constantly said that the church should prepare and have assets in reserve.  The question in how much.

Did I say that?

You an argue with @Analyticson these points then.  My point has been what level of wealth accumulation is proper for a church that claims the be Jesus's church.

Yes the ones @Analytics provided.  They seem like reasonable guidelines for Church's as well.  Why would they not be?

See above.

You are wrong.  But a straw mam is always fun to set up.

Again a straw man.

It was not shouting it was emphasizing. I will bold next time.

Oh come now.  There are plenty of things to invest without needing to invest in problematic industries.

Yes. EPA at 100 Billion and a lot of land.  And I said it was specualtion. Sheesh. 

And you will always find something to be offended about and persecuted about.

Thank you for proving my point.

All wonderful.  Yet it ignores the question I keep bringing up as do you.

Quite a bit actually.  Apparently the Gates are more generous that The Church of Jesus Christ and try to do more to alleviate human sufferings.  But if you want to benchmark against foundations that retain more of the wealth well more power to you.

Ok the Church is its members.

Well we do know  EPA has spent $0 on humanitarian aid.

You are really good at hyperbole.

Well EPA has billions upon billion that is just sitting there.  The organizations you mention within the church do not.  One wonders why only the Church president initially know what was up with EPA.  Even Elder Packer was denied information on it.  Why is that do you think?

Of course I care where it might go.  

You comment that you agree that the Church should maintain reserves, but you wonder how much. Right?

Consider first the purpose of reserves. I suggest the purpose of reserves is to protect against unknown eventualities. Do you disagree?

If, as Latter-day Saints believe, President Nelson is called of God to preside over this Church, then it is possible that the Lord has revealed things to him which make it prudent to establish reserves which may seem, to some, excessive.  In other words, President Nelson may (does) know something that you and I do not.

Could it be that what some folks are actually upset about is that President Nelson has not told us everything the Lord has revealed to him?  Sometimes just a little faith is all we need to accept things we do not yet fully understand.

And just a shortcut the question as to why President Nelson doesn’t tell us everything that the Lord has told him:

“It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.” Alma 12:9

The fact the President Nelson may (does) know things that we do not know should cause us some consternation because it is indicative that we are not heeding the warnings that have been given to us in the past.