Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Putting the Church’s “Rainy Day Fund” In Perspective


Recommended Posts

On 1/17/2023 at 10:00 AM, Eschaton said:

I don't think it's about benefiting my life - but it would certainly benefit the poor and outcast (I'm neither). 

From what I have observed over many years, the Church has constantly stepped up that kind of help as it becomes more able. 

Link to comment
49 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Why would people who are not active in the church be worried about needing to make an informed decision? Just don't pay the tithing. Problem solved. If they could make an informed decision does that mean they would pay tithing even though they are not active? Just not sure what the problem is. 

People use the word transparency, but what does that really mean and just how transparent does the church need to be to satisfy everyone's definition of transparency? Critics who question it will always question it no matter what the church does.

I guess I am talking more about people who are considering joining the Church.  I know investigators are all taught about tithing.  Should they be informed about what tithing dollars are used for as part of that discussion?  I remember giving those discussions as a missionary and telling people that the money was used to build and maintain buildings and help the poor.  It turns our, there was more to it than that.  Do you think most members know where their tithing dollars are going?  Or do you think it is none of their business to know where their tithing dollars are going.  Just blindly give to Church leaders?  Is it the Church leaders church to run it however they want to without any accountability to the members?  I am not talking about financial statements.  I am talking more generally, like the Church telling them it has a 100 billion dollar stock portfolio and substantial land and business ventures.  When they pay their tithing, part of it will go to increase that rainy day fund.

I agree that it is not important to someone who is not a member paying into the system which is why I don't really care.  It is more a morality question.   If there is one lesson the Church should have learned by now, hiding its history and important facts about the Church doesn't always work out well if you want to keep members.  Perhaps it is not important to you, but to some, it may very well be extremely important.  No one likes feeling like they have been deceived and not told the whole story.  

Is it impossible for you to see how this could possible be a problem for some recent converts and members?

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, california boy said:

I guess I am talking more about people who are considering joining the Church.  I know investigators are all taught about tithing.  Should they be informed about what tithing dollars are used for as part of that discussion?  I remember giving those discussions as a missionary and telling people that the money was used to build and maintain buildings and help the poor.  It turns our, there was more to it than that.  Do you think most members know where their tithing dollars are going?  Or do you think it is none of their business to know where their tithing dollars are going.  Just blindly give to Church leaders?  Is it the Church leaders church to run it however they want to without any accountability to the members?  I am not talking about financial statements.  I am talking more generally, like the Church telling them it has a 100 billion dollar stock portfolio and substantial land and business ventures.  When they pay their tithing, part of it will go to increase that rainy day fund.

I agree that it is not important to someone who is not a member paying into the system which is why I don't really care.  It is more a morality question.   If there is one lesson the Church should have learned by now, hiding its history and important facts about the Church doesn't always work out well if you want to keep members.  Perhaps it is not important to you, but to some, it may very well be extremely important.  No one likes feeling like they have been deceived and not told the whole story.  

Is it impossible for you to see how this could possible be a problem for some recent converts and members?

I guess it's depends on a member's strength of testimony and level of faith. I think those who call themselves faithful members, should trust the prophets that God has put in charge of the church and how it uses the money. The church leaders are certainly not getting rich off the money and they are using professional financial advisors who know the business much better than the average church member. I can't see missionaries sitting down with an investigator to discuss all the stocks, businesses and land holdings of the church as part of the gospel discussion. 
Here is what they teach in Preach My Gospel:
"Tithing funds are used to support the ongoing activities of the Church, such as building and maintaining temples and meetinghouses, carrying the gospel to all the world, conducting temple and family history work, and many other worldwide activities" 
Other worldwide activities covers everything else. If an investigator is concerned enough they could ask the missionaries or someone else the details of the other activities. Hopefully the investigator will develop a strong enough testimony and confirmation from the Holy Ghost that the gospel is true and that the prophets are called of God to do His will correctly and therefore will not be concerned so much about the details. 
Members who start to question what is being done with the money might already be on their way out anyway because of more serious reasons.
I willingly leave it in the hands of the prophets to handle the Lord's resources to make sure there is enough for now as well as the future needs.   But that's just me.

Link to comment
11 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Right.  You made the claim. 

Wrong.  I was responded to someone else who said the words were from God.

11 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

I don't think you are senile, or unintelligent, or even particularly forgetful, but, for your convenience, here is the claim you made.  (I don't have to support any claims I haven't made, nor am I asking you to do so.)

 

You can play these  games all day long.  But you and other Latter day Saints are the one who claim the BoM and other LDS scripturas are from God. The burden of proof is on you and others.

Link to comment
11 hours ago, JAHS said:

Why would people who are not active in the church be worried about needing to make an informed decision?

He was active in the church. He said in retrospect had the church been transparent about their large stock portfolio and other financial matters he maybe would not have tithed as much.  So he was an active member.  I feel the same way.  Maybe this is why the Church leadership keeps financial info a secret and especially the EPA account until they could not any longer?

11 hours ago, JAHS said:

 

Just don't pay the tithing. Problem solved. If they could make an informed decision does that mean they would pay tithing even though they are not active? Just not sure what the problem is. 

Well he does not pay tithing now nor do I.  Though we did at one point.

11 hours ago, JAHS said:

People use the word transparency, but what does that really mean and just how transparent does the church need to be to satisfy everyone's definition of transparency?

There is guidance out there.  Here are some examples:

https://ministrywatch.com/ministrywatch-releases-list-of-christian-ministries-with-transparency-grade-of-f/

https://faithlead.org/blog/transparency-in-church-finances/

I would say at minimum releasing an annual audited financial report for all the church entities including EPA.  A source and use of funds statement would be helpful as well.  Do what all other non profits have to do.

 

11 hours ago, JAHS said:

 

 

Critics who question it will always question it no matter what the church does.

This is a common comment and simply a deflection.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I would say at minimum releasing an annual audited financial report for all the church entities including EPA.  A source and use of funds statement would be helpful as well.  Do what all other non profits have to do.

Do you think apostles should be allowed to see complete financial statements? According to the whistleblower report:

Boyd K. Packer—when he was next in line to succeed then-President of the COP, Thomas S. Monson—came to Mr. Clarke wanting to know how much Ensign Peak had amassed and the details of its structure. Mr. Clarke told Mr. Packer that he could not share such details. Mr. Packer said, “I think I should know. I’m the most senior Apostle and President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and I’m a breath away from being the next Prophet. I think I should be prepared.” Mr. Clarke reaffirmed that he had been instructed not to reveal that information to Mr. Packer, who went away perturbed and unsatisfied, as related to the whistleblower by Richard B. Willes, the Head of Fixed Income at EPA at the time. Mr. Packer died before he could join the First Presidency and know the value of EPA.

This seem unbelievable, but is corroborated by the Church's Financial Standard #6230, "Accessing and Securing Financial Information", which was revised on June 3, 2013, and signed by Alan L. Bott, Church Controller. Exhibit A of that document shows a grid with 16 types of "Financial Data" and indicates who can see what. According to that document, the Quorum of the Twelve are not authorized to see reports that contain the following:

  • Cash
  • Investment securities
  • Investment properties
  • Other assets
  • Liabilities
  • Net assets
  • Personnel (salary, etc.)

See: https://archive.org/details/MormonDocumentsLDSChurchInternalLeaks/25-AccessingAndSecuringFinancialInformation/page/n3/mode/2up

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Wrong.  I was responded to someone else who said the words were from God.

Not wrong.  In the process of doing that, you made the claim that they are not.  That is the claim that you made, and, therefore, it is incumbent upon you to support it.  You didn't ask the person who made the claim to support the claim that he or she made, you simply, sans evidence, made a counterclaim.

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

You can play these  games all day long.  But you and other Latter day Saints are the one who claim the BoM and other LDS scripturas are from God. The burden of proof is on you and others.

Scripturas?  I'm sorry, I don't speak Latin. ;)  The Spanish word for scriptures is escrituras, if that's what you were going for.  And I wasn't playing a game in responding to you: I was completely serious.

Thanks.

Link to comment
59 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Do you think apostles should be allowed to see complete financial statements? According to the whistleblower report:

Boyd K. Packer—when he was next in line to succeed then-President of the COP, Thomas S. Monson—came to Mr. Clarke wanting to know how much Ensign Peak had amassed and the details of its structure. Mr. Clarke told Mr. Packer that he could not share such details. Mr. Packer said, “I think I should know. I’m the most senior Apostle and President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and I’m a breath away from being the next Prophet. I think I should be prepared.” Mr. Clarke reaffirmed that he had been instructed not to reveal that information to Mr. Packer, who went away perturbed and unsatisfied, as related to the whistleblower by Richard B. Willes, the Head of Fixed Income at EPA at the time. Mr. Packer died before he could join the First Presidency and know the value of EPA.

This seem unbelievable, but is corroborated by the Church's Financial Standard #6230, "Accessing and Securing Financial Information", which was revised on June 3, 2013, and signed by Alan L. Bott, Church Controller. Exhibit A of that document shows a grid with 16 types of "Financial Data" and indicates who can see what. According to that document, the Quorum of the Twelve are not authorized to see reports that contain the following:

  • Cash
  • Investment securities
  • Investment properties
  • Other assets
  • Liabilities
  • Net assets
  • Personnel (salary, etc.)

See: https://archive.org/details/MormonDocumentsLDSChurchInternalLeaks/25-AccessingAndSecuringFinancialInformation/page/n3/mode/2up

Interesting that the Presiding Bishopric does have access to everything related to finances, which is as it should be  since they manage such matters as humanitarian aid, welfare programs, tithing and fast offerings, physical facilities, etc. I don't see any reason why the Apostles need access to everything. They have their own responsibilities that they need to focus their time on.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Not wrong.  In the process of doing that, you made the claim that they are not.  That is the claim that you made, and, therefore, it is incumbent upon you to support it.  You didn't ask the person who made the claim to support the claim that he or she made, you simply, sans evidence, made a counterclaim.

You know yours is a terrible argument, right? In order for the direction to be from God, there must be a God. Evidence in favor of the existence of God is not objective, empirically testable, verifiable, or externally reliable. "Evidence" for the existence of God is faith-based and always has been. Since the concept of faith is a necessary condition for most religions which believe to know the mind and will of God, that comes as no surprise. What is implicit in @Teancum's statement is that we have myriad examples and evidence of humans claiming to speak for God and yet are proven wrong. It's been happening for centuries. His statement, then, is clearly based on that history and his personal observations. I think you probably understand everything I just pointed out and still chose to play a word game with him. That you punctuated that word game by mocking a typo, simply emphasizes my point.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Not wrong.  In the process of doing that, you made the claim that they are not.  That is the claim that you made, and, therefore, it is incumbent upon you to support it.  You didn't ask the person who made the claim to support the claim that he or she made, you simply, sans evidence, made a counterclaim

You don't seem to understand logic very well. Not worth discussing any more but yea you are wrong.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Teancum said:

You don't seem to understand logic very well. Not worth discussing any more but yea you are wrong.

I understand logic fairly well, Sir.  It is you who wishes your audience to accept your blanket bald-faced assertions (here's another one: "You are wrong") without offering anything to support them.  If that's what passes for "logic" in your world, you are correct.  I want no part of it.  Good day.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, ttribe said:

You know yours is a terrible argument, right? In order for the direction to be from God, there must be a God. Evidence in favor of the existence of God is not objective, empirically testable, verifiable, or externally reliable. "Evidence" for the existence of God is faith-based and always has been. Since the concept of faith is a necessary condition for most religions which believe to know the mind and will of God, that comes as no surprise. What is implicit in @Teancum's statement is that we have myriad examples and evidence of humans claiming to speak for God and yet are proven wrong. It's been happening for centuries. His statement, then, is clearly based on that history and his personal observations. I think you probably understand everything I just pointed out and still chose to play a word game with him. That you punctuated that word game by mocking a typo, simply emphasizes my point.

I'm not sure to what "argument" you are referring, Sir.  I don't know that I've made any "arguments" in this thread, but my memory isn't what it used to be.  Ah, well.  My head is spinning: According to you, I understand the logic being employed in this thread perfectly well, I'm simply playing "word games" yet your fellow traveler, Teancum, leveled the inverse of that accusation against me. If you believe I am doing nothing more than playing "word games," yet, still you chose to engage me, whose fault is that?  Good day.

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment
6 hours ago, Analytics said:

Do you think apostles should be allowed to see complete financial statements? According to the whistleblower report:

Boyd K. Packer—when he was next in line to succeed then-President of the COP, Thomas S. Monson—came to Mr. Clarke wanting to know how much Ensign Peak had amassed and the details of its structure. Mr. Clarke told Mr. Packer that he could not share such details. Mr. Packer said, “I think I should know. I’m the most senior Apostle and President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and I’m a breath away from being the next Prophet. I think I should be prepared.” Mr. Clarke reaffirmed that he had been instructed not to reveal that information to Mr. Packer, who went away perturbed and unsatisfied, as related to the whistleblower by Richard B. Willes, the Head of Fixed Income at EPA at the time. Mr. Packer died before he could join the First Presidency and know the value of EPA.

This seem unbelievable, but is corroborated by the Church's Financial Standard #6230, "Accessing and Securing Financial Information", which was revised on June 3, 2013, and signed by Alan L. Bott, Church Controller. Exhibit A of that document shows a grid with 16 types of "Financial Data" and indicates who can see what. According to that document, the Quorum of the Twelve are not authorized to see reports that contain the following:

  • Cash
  • Investment securities
  • Investment properties
  • Other assets
  • Liabilities
  • Net assets
  • Personnel (salary, etc.)

See: https://archive.org/details/MormonDocumentsLDSChurchInternalLeaks/25-AccessingAndSecuringFinancialInformation/page/n3/mode/2up

That is interesting.  According to the following, they are obligated by revelation to have access to it:

Quote

The Lord has revealed how this means [tithing] shall be cared for, and managed; namely, by the Presidency of the Church and the High Council of the Church (that is, the Twelve Apostles), and the Presiding Bishopric of the Church. I think there is wisdom in this. It is not left for one man to dispose of it, or to handle it alone, not by any means. It devolves upon at least eighteen men, men of wisdom, of faith, of ability, as these eighteen men are. I say it devolves upon them to dispose of the tithes of the people and to use them for whatever purpose in their judgment and wisdom will accomplish the most good for the Church; … this fund of tithing is disposed of by these men whom the Lord has designated as having authority to do it, for the necessities and benefit of the Church.12

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-joseph-f-smith/chapter-31?lang=eng

All of the cash, assets, and other investments originated from tithing, did they not?  It seems that they should have access to review any asset and expenditures of tithing. 

 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
7 hours ago, Analytics said:

Do you think apostles should be allowed to see complete financial statements? According to the whistleblower report:

Boyd K. Packer—when he was next in line to succeed then-President of the COP, Thomas S. Monson—came to Mr. Clarke wanting to know how much Ensign Peak had amassed and the details of its structure. Mr. Clarke told Mr. Packer that he could not share such details. Mr. Packer said, “I think I should know. I’m the most senior Apostle and President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and I’m a breath away from being the next Prophet. I think I should be prepared.” Mr. Clarke reaffirmed that he had been instructed not to reveal that information to Mr. Packer, who went away perturbed and unsatisfied, as related to the whistleblower by Richard B. Willes, the Head of Fixed Income at EPA at the time. Mr. Packer died before he could join the First Presidency and know the value of EPA.

This seem unbelievable, but is corroborated by the Church's Financial Standard #6230, "Accessing and Securing Financial Information", which was revised on June 3, 2013, and signed by Alan L. Bott, Church Controller. Exhibit A of that document shows a grid with 16 types of "Financial Data" and indicates who can see what. According to that document, the Quorum of the Twelve are not authorized to see reports that contain the following:

  • Cash
  • Investment securities
  • Investment properties
  • Other assets
  • Liabilities
  • Net assets
  • Personnel (salary, etc.)

See: https://archive.org/details/MormonDocumentsLDSChurchInternalLeaks/25-AccessingAndSecuringFinancialInformation/page/n3/mode/2up

Yes it seems odd to carve this out from 12 of the top 15.  And paranoid.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, JAHS said:

Interesting that the Presiding Bishopric does have access to everything related to finances, which is as it should be  since they manage such matters as humanitarian aid, welfare programs, tithing and fast offerings, physical facilities, etc. I don't see any reason why the Apostles need access to everything. They have their own responsibilities that they need to focus their time on.

Good lord. They run the church as much as the first presidency. They even say all 15 have to agree to do anything of substance. They certainly should have access. The presiding bishopric is like a CEO, COO and CFO so yea it makes sense for them  to see all this.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I understand logic fairly well, Sir.  It is you who wishes your audience to accept your blanket bald-faced assertions (here's another one: "You are wrong") without offering anything to support them.  If that's what passes for "logic" in your world, you are correct.  I want no part of it.  Good day.

What ttribe said.  If you cannot comprehend that you are beyond rational reasoning at least on this topic.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm not sure to what "argument" you are referring, Sir.  I don't know that I've made any "arguments" in this thread, but my memory isn't what it used to be.  Ah, well.  My head is spinning: According to you, I understand the logic being employed in this thread perfectly well, I'm simply playing "word games" yet your fellow traveler, Teancum, leveled the inverse of that accusation against me. If you believe I am doing nothing more than playing "word games," yet, still you chose to engage me, whose fault is that?  Good day.

That @Teancumwas somehow responsible for offering evidence for his statement that any directions on the Church's use of its money came from men and not from God. Why are you being obtuse?

Link to comment
1 minute ago, ttribe said:

That @Teancumwas somehow responsible for offering evidence for his statement that any directions on the Church's use of its money came from men and not from God. Why are you being obtuse?

 

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

What ttribe said.  If you cannot comprehend that you are beyond rational reasoning at least on this topic.

Good day, Gentlemen.

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Yes it seems odd to carve this out from 12 of the top 15.  And paranoid.

That is from instructions to the EPA company and not necessarily churchwide though, is it not?  We don’t have instructions to the presiding bishopric or other leaders with current direct access. 
 

Apostles may be able to access the info anytime they want through going to the presiding bishopric or asking the FP office. There may be legal reasons leadership want to limit direct access, perhaps liability issues or business organization structures (I am not educated in any way in this kind of stuff, so don’t know how likely my speculation is)…it does sound very churchlike though where it is so much about going by the line of authority and supposedly no skipping steps, going straight to the top rather than through local leaders first, etc so it might just be that. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
1 hour ago, pogi said:

That is interesting.  According to the following, they are obligated by revelation to have access to it:

All of the cash, assets, and other investments originated from tithing, did they not?  It seems that they should have access to review any asset and expenditures of tithing. 

 

That was according to Joseph F. Smith over a hundred years ago and and Joseph Smith Jr 185 years ago. Latter-day prophets have changed that, just as many other things have changed over the years as needed by the church and directed by God.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, JAHS said:

That was according to Joseph F. Smith over a hundred years ago and and Joseph Smith Jr 185 years ago. Latter-day prophets have changed that, just as many other things have changed over the years as needed by the church and directed by God.

Yes but if things have changed, they shouldn’t be publishing this in modern church manuals as if it still true today.  I am wondering what revelation he is speaking of.  Is he referring to something in the D&C?

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
21 minutes ago, pogi said:

Yes but if things have changed, they should be publishing this in modern church manuals as if it still true today.  I am wondering what revelation he is speaking of.  Is he referring to something in the D&C?

D&C 120 referring to tithing as explained in Section 119

"Verily, thus saith the Lord, the time is now come, that it shall be disposed of by a council, composed of the First Presidency of my Church, and of the bishop and his council, and by my high council; and by mine own voice unto them, saith the Lord. Even so. Amen."

President Joseph F Smith put the words "that is the Twelve Apostles" in parenthesis of his quote as to what was meant by "my high council". Not sure if that was his interpretation or someone else.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, JAHS said:

D&C 120 referring to tithing as explained in Section 119

"Verily, thus saith the Lord, the time is now come, that it shall be disposed of by a council, composed of the First Presidency of my Church, and of the bishop and his council, and by my high council; and by mine own voice unto them, saith the Lord. Even so. Amen."

President Joseph F Smith put the words "that is the Twelve Apostles" in parenthesis of his quote as to what was meant by "my high council". Not sure if that was his interpretation or someone else.

What else would it be if not the apostles?  The church is publishing his quote in church manuals that it is in reference to the apostles.

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, pogi said:

What else would it be if not the apostles?  The church is publishing his quote in church manuals that it is in reference to the apostles.

It would depend on how the Church was structured at the time, wouldn’t it?  I am not that familiar with early organization, but iirc it went through several variations as it grew. 
 

Quote

The church is publishing his quote in church manuals that it is in reference to the apostles.

If it is publishing such, seems like it should abide by it…but it might in ways we are not aware of.

It seems weird to me that someone as highly placed as Pres Packer would be unaware he was not to know about such details if this was standard practice or that was the first time he was interested in such details. Makes more sense to me there were other ways he learned of the same info, but for some reason decided to use a different route that time, maybe his usual source was out of town. 
 

Not expecting everyone see it the way I do, but I would expect most people to realize we have only a small possible snapshot of one organization involved in what is likely a quite complex organization with various communication guidelines that could vary between its departments, so it is wise not to assume we know enough to draw solid conclusions. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...