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

[pogi]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

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. 

Yes, but one would hope that Joseph F. Smith would have had a pretty good idea as to that structure of the Church at the time and what that passage was referring to.   He was much less removed from that period than we are.  

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

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

The only justification I can see is that the passage is in reference to tithing specifically.  In that chart it shows that the apostles do have access to review the tithings of the church.  I am just having difficulty understanding why the other investments, cash, etc. would be disassociated from tithing and from their purview, as they all most certainly originated from that source (tithing). 

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, pogi said:

Yes, but one would hope that Joseph F. Smith would have had a pretty good idea as to that structure of the Church at the time and what that passage was referring to.   He was much less removed from that period than we are.  

The only justification I can see is that the passage is in reference to tithing specifically.  In that chart it shows that the apostles do have access to review the tithings of the church.  I am just having difficulty understanding why the other investments, cash, etc. would be disassociated from tithing and from their purview, as they all most certainly originated from that source (tithing). 

But you are assuming they can only find out by going directly to EPA. What if they can get access through another organization that oversees the financial ones, perhaps the office of Presiding Bishopric. Would that be contrary to the revelation?

Edited January 20, 2023 by Calm

[JAHS]

Duplicate

Edited January 20, 2023 by JAHS

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

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?

Which "modern church manuals" are you referring to? The Joseph F Smith quote was from "Teaching of the prophet Joseph F Smith". It is historical information that he said 100 years ago. So it can easily be related to the conditions of the Church at the time he said it. 
Another way to look at it is that the Exhibit A shown in an earlier post specifically states those who have "access to financial data". The Twelve Apostles may indeed have a say in how the church "disposes" of the money as suggested in the D&C scripture, but they may not have access to the actual amounts of money that are in the various categories. 

[california boy]

On 1/18/2023 at 9:19 PM, JAHS said:

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.

While some do trust Church leaders and are willing to not question their decisions,  everyone is willing to blindly follow Church leaders.

On 1/18/2023 at 9:19 PM, JAHS said:

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.

As has been pointed out countless times in this thread, that is not the issue.  I don't think anyone feels church leaders are getting rich nor doubting the professionalism of its advisors.  They are questioning the direction where the wealth of the Church is going.

On 1/18/2023 at 9:19 PM, JAHS said:

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. 

As I said in my reply last time, I don't think discussing all stocks, business and land holdings of the Church is necessary.  The fact that you put this in tells me that you really aren't listening to my concerns.  You just don't think someone investigating the Church shouldn't be told about 100 billion dollar rainy day fund.  Why couldn't an honest statement be made about where the money they are donating to is going.  Something like adding, tithing funds are used to support 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.  The Church also invests heavily in a rainy day financial portfolio with money not used to maintain it's ecclesiastic needs.

On 1/18/2023 at 9:19 PM, JAHS said:

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.

Why? Because they see a role of helping the poor, sick, unhoused and unfortunate as being an important part of the mission of the Church?  

On 1/18/2023 at 9:19 PM, JAHS said:

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.

I am sure there are a lot of members that feel similar to you.  But your feelings are not held universally and to assume that anyone who doesn't share your same view must be on the way out is troubling.

[JAHS]

9 minutes ago, california boy said:

Why? Because they see a role of helping the poor, sick, unhoused and unfortunate as being an important part of the mission of the Church?  

I think you and most members already know that is an important part of the Church mission. The Church gave a billion dollars in that kind of aid last year. It is my opinion that they are maintaining a healthy balance between growing and maintaining the Church and providing aid to the poor and unfortunate. No matter what the Church does it will not be enough for critics who want to complain about it. 

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am sure there are a lot of members that feel similar to you.  But your feelings are not held universally and to assume that anyone who doesn't share your same view must be on the way out is troubling.

It's just that the subject of money should not be a deciding factor in whether a member believes in the Church or not. I have seen it as a symptom in members who are already having more serious issues with church doctrines and policies. I know we can't make blanket statements like this about every member, but it is just something I have personally observed. 

[Calm]

Once support to charities is given, those charities may end up depending on that support being consistent and reliable.  Apparently Amazon Smile is folding, the excuse is not enough charities use it.  This just may create a big hole in the funds of smaller charities that have expanded their efforts based on expectation of funds coming from Smile.  If the Church is going to become a major ongoing supporter of  a charity, of many charities as it appears to have done and be doing, I would hope it would be able to guarantee funding will be in place for several years in advance so no charities end up folding and having those they serve end up worst off because they made commitments they cannot now fulfill because the Church goes “oops” like Amazon has, such as having scholarship funds dry up before they are through school without alternative funding available.  

My guess is the Church is taking it not that slow (they are up to over a billion a year after all), but are approaching growth in donations steadily to avoid possible roller coasting (as has now occurred with Amazon) as well as carefully choosing projects to avoid disruption of local economies as happened with second hand clothing charities tanking Kenya’s homegrown fabric industry that is only coming back now due to significant government limitation of the secondhand industry and subsidizing of the locals.  Because of errors in charitable efforts due to unforeseen consequences (many that should have been foreseen if someone had taken the time to think before acting) I have researched, I prefer to see a slower, controlled growth of total donations amount, but even a slower, steady growth at the rate the Church is doing it is going to end up quite massive.  It has only been a short time (in my view at least) since they were doing a reported 10 million dollars a year and now they are funding charities to the tune of over 1 billion a year.  I also prefer to see them build up a substantial chest alongside expanding their outreach prior to making all that many more commitments so they will be able to be committed to supporting these charities as long as they are needed.  At some point they will have to start saying no to new charitable projects, but hopefully they won’t have to turn their backs on established partners (making sure their partners and chosen projects are reliable and safe is also important and can take time, especially with newer charities) and instead unlike Amazon, they will be able to maintain funding.  

My guess is with the world’s current situation the growth of donations is going to go up faster than the Church’s wealth relatively soon and equilibrium between income and expenses will be reached unfortunately rather quickly.

Edited January 21, 2023 by Calm

[pogi]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

But you are assuming they can only find out by going directly to EPA. What if they can get access through another organization that oversees the financial ones, perhaps the office of Presiding Bishopric. Would that be contrary to the revelation?

I suppose, but that would be strange to require them to go through the Presiding Bishopric who gets their info directly from the EPA.  Why would they be blocked from the EPA but be allowed second-hand access through the Presiding Bishopric?

Honestly, the church is free to interpret the revelation however they want, I am just trying to figure out the purpose of keeping direct access from the apostles.  I don't suspect anything nefarious going on here, it just seems strange that they would actively be blocked from direct access when lesser authorities are granted access.  For some reason the link is not working for me right now, but I think I recall seeing that Area Presidencies and others had access while the apostles didn't.   

[JAHS]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

At some point they will have to start saying no to new charitable projects, but hopefully they won’t have to turn their backs on established partners

Right. When the Church announced they were breaking ties with the Boy Scouts they committed to support the organization for another full year. 

[pogi]

12 hours ago, JAHS said:

Which "modern church manuals" are you referring to? The Joseph F Smith quote was from "Teaching of the prophet Joseph F Smith". It is historical information that he said 100 years ago. So it can easily be related to the conditions of the Church at the time he said it. 

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

The teachings of the Presidents of the Church manuals were used as lesson manuals in church for years.  I'm not sure why you are protesting the idea that this is a "modern church manual".  It clearly was in use in the church in recent years, even while this other policy was in place.   The purpose of the manual was not to give historical accounts and information for historical purposes which are not applicable in practice and principle today.  It was not stated in the context of contrasting how these teachings and principles are different from today. The purpose was to teach principles of past prophets that we can follow today. 

12 hours ago, JAHS said:

Another way to look at it is that the Exhibit A shown in an earlier post specifically states those who have "access to financial data". The Twelve Apostles may indeed have a say in how the church "disposes" of the money as suggested in the D&C scripture, but they may not have access to the actual amounts of money that are in the various categories. 

Like I explained to Calm, the church is free to interpret it however they want.  It just seems strange to me and I am trying to figure it out.  

Edited January 20, 2023 by pogi

[JAHS]

23 minutes ago, pogi said:

Like I explained to Calm, the church is free to interpret it however they want.  It just seems strange to me and I am trying to figure it out.  

Part of that document talks about what stewardship a position is responsible for The Church likes to make sure that nobody steps outside their stewardship. It is part of the order of the organization so that nobody is doing something they shouldn't be doing without the person in charge of that department knowing what is happening. 

[pogi]

23 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Part of that document talks about what stewardship a position is responsible for The Church likes to make sure that nobody steps outside their stewardship. It is part of the order of the organization so that nobody is doing something they shouldn't be doing without the person in charge of that department knowing what is happening. 

Right.  That is why I am confused as to why the apostles aren't perceived as having stewardship over these things.  It seems to me that they would have stewardship over all things tithing.  

To suggest that they have stewardship over how the church disposes of the money as suggested in D&C, without having access to see how much money is there, again, seems strange.  How could they possible be expected to be wise stewards over how the money is used if they don't have access to the numbers?

Edited January 20, 2023 by pogi

[JAHS]

20 minutes ago, pogi said:

Right.  That is why I am confused as to why the apostles aren't perceived as having stewardship over these things.  It seems to me that they would have stewardship over all things tithing.  

To suggest that they have stewardship over how the church disposes of the money as suggested in D&C, without having access to see how much money is there, again, seems strange.  How could they possible be expected to be wise stewards over how the money is used if they don't have access to the numbers?

By asking the people who do have the numbers. The Presiding Bishopric who are the stewards over that department. There is not going to be one rogue Apostle that wants money for something. This is all done by committee who collectively discuss what is needed and whether it is justified and funds available for it.

[pogi]

5 minutes ago, JAHS said:

By asking the people who do have the numbers.

This is an assumption that they would be granted access that way.   Why not just give them direct access? 

5 minutes ago, JAHS said:

The Presiding Bishopric who are the stewards over that department.

So are the apostles, according to the D&C

5 minutes ago, JAHS said:

There is not going to be one rogue Apostle that wants money for something. This is all done by committee who collectively discuss what is needed and whether it is justified and funds available for it.

I agree.  I am just wondering why the apostles don't have direct access as stewards over tithing.  

[JAHS]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

This is an assumption that they would be granted access that way.   Why not just give them direct access? 

So are the apostles, according to the D&C

I agree.  I am just wondering why the apostles don't have direct access as stewards over tithing.  

Because of what I already said. They may be stewards over what the money might be needed for but not stewards over the exact numbers that are in the Church accounts. Like I said they all discuss this in committee which includes the Presiding Bishopric who can provide whatever numbers they need. The Apostles main concerns are over the spiritual welfare of the church, missionary work, and temple work; not the temporal needs.  That's all I can say about it. It is what it is and the system has been working well for decades.

[CV75]

56 minutes ago, pogi said:

This is an assumption that they would be granted access that way.   Why not just give them direct access? 

So are the apostles, according to the D&C

I agree.  I am just wondering why the apostles don't have direct access as stewards over tithing.  

What does "direct access" entail in relation to "consecrated delegation" (my term to describe the method of stewarding/administering temporal and spiritual things, including by appointment, by our spiritual authorities and quorums as described in D&C 107)?

I like this description by Elder Bednar: The Windows of Heaven (churchofjesuschrist.org) in which he addresses at length "the simplicity of the Lord's way."

[Calm]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Why would they be blocked from the EPA but be allowed second-hand access through the Presiding Bishopric?

 

Why can’t we write to the First Presidency directly and expect a response instead of going to our stake president?

[Ferdinand55]

@Analytics, your approach is interesting, but ultimately futile because as you said:

On 1/12/2023 at 3:35 PM, Analytics said:

 The objective is to speak competently about the church’s current and projected income, current and projected expenses, and the sum-total of the risks it faces.

You say we need to speak competently, and then assume that you can by nature of your profession, despite the fact that you had to guess at several of the numbers.

For example:

On 1/12/2023 at 3:41 PM, Analytics said:

The Church is a corporate sole and/or a public non-profit. 100% of its “profits” are used to increase the financial strength of the Church.

…

The Church has no debt and is extremely flexible in terms of its finances.

On 1/12/2023 at 3:44 PM, Analytics said:

The Church takes in perhaps $7 billion a year in tithing revenue, plus perhaps $500 million a year in fast offerings

…

The Church probably pays a couple billion a year on buildings and building maintenance per year, another couple of billion on church education, and a few hundred million a year on the missionary program, and another few hundred million on overhead and everything else. Something like that.

On 1/12/2023 at 3:53 PM, Analytics said:

We know that including its for-profit business and real estate portfolio, the Church’s “rainy day fund” is somewhere between $100 billion and $200 billion (or whatever you think its secret reports happen to say).

 

Edited January 20, 2023 by Ferdinand55

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Why can’t we write to the First Presidency directly and expect a response instead of going to our stake president?

I'm not sure I understand.

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

I'm not sure I understand.

Church structure and culture is very much communicate through line of authority. You are to stick to the process, follow the flowcharts etc.  As primary teachers we were told to bring our concerns to the primary President, who then would go to the bishopric counselor (2nd iirc) who goes to the bishop, who then if needed would have gone to the appropriate stake person, who goes to the appropriate area authority, and up the chain. And then the answer comes down the chain. 

Edited January 20, 2023 by Calm

[pogi]

3 hours ago, JAHS said:

They may be stewards over what the money might be needed for but not stewards over the exact numbers that are in the Church accounts.

This makes no sense to me.  How can one be a wise steward over the use of money if they can't know "exact numbers"?

3 hours ago, JAHS said:

which includes the Presiding Bishopric who can provide whatever numbers they need.

Again, this is an assumption.  You don't know that they have authority to give these numbers to the apostles.  If they can, then there is no reason to block them. 

3 hours ago, JAHS said:

The Apostles main concerns are over the spiritual welfare of the church, missionary work, and temple work; not the temporal needs.  That's all I can say about it. It is what it is and the system has been working well for decades.

I agree.   But are they stewards over how money is used etc. or not?

 

[pogi]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

What does "direct access" entail in relation to "consecrated delegation" (my term to describe the method of stewarding/administering temporal and spiritual things, including by appointment, by our spiritual authorities and quorums as described in D&C 107)?

I like this description by Elder Bednar: The Windows of Heaven (churchofjesuschrist.org) in which he addresses at length "the simplicity of the Lord's way."

I don't know what you mean.  Your made up terms really confuse me.  I wish we could just use common dialect that we all use in the church. 

Direct access means that if someone is a steward over funds and how they are used, they shouldn't be blocked from knowing the numbers in those accounts.   If they have "delegated" their responsibilities to others, that is fine, but they are still the primary stewards and it doesn't make sense that they would be blocked. 

Edited January 20, 2023 by pogi

[pogi]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Church structure and culture is very much communicate through line of authority. You are to stick to the process, follow the flowcharts etc.  As primary teachers we were told to bring our concerns to the primary President, who then would go to the bishopric counselor (2nd iirc) who goes to the bishop, who then if needed would have gone to the appropriate stake person, who goes to the appropriate area authority, and up the chain. And then the answer comes down the chain. 

I get that, but in this case the apostles are stated as the top of the line of authority as stewards over these funds and how they are used, along with the Presiding Bishopric and First Presidency. 

Edited January 20, 2023 by pogi

[JAHS]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

This makes no sense to me.  How can one be a wise steward over the use of money if they can't know "exact numbers"?

Again, this is an assumption.  You don't know that they have authority to give these numbers to the apostles.  If they can, then there is no reason to block them. 

I agree.   But are they stewards over how money is used etc. or not?

 

I guess no answer is going to satisfy you so I am done with this. Send a letter to the Presiding Bishop. 

[pogi]

9 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I guess no answer is going to satisfy you so I am done with this. Send a letter to the Presiding Bishop. 

You don't seem to want to answer my first question above in a way that makes wise financial sense. 

I am sure there is an answer that will satisfy me.  You simply haven't provided it.   I am willing to bet there is a good reasonable answer, and I am pretty sure that it has nothing to do with being stewards over how the money is spent without being stewards over knowing how much money they have. 

Edited January 20, 2023 by pogi