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

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, pogi said:

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. 

Some in the Church can get uptight about sharing info in sometimes stupid ways that they actually don’t have to follow from the stories I have heard and I do think if reasons were given more often for why things are done the way they are this type of foolishness would be avoided more often. The publicizing of the handbook is great, I hope over time more clarity on how things work is given. 
 

 

[Analytics]

35 minutes ago, pogi said:

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. 

Here is my guess.

Presuming the Church follows standard accounting practices, before 1997 all of the Church's investment income would show up on its income statement, and all of its commercial assets would show up on its balance sheet. Then in 1997 when EPA was formed, the Church donated most of its for-profit assets to what is, from an accounting point of view, a third-party public charity (i.e. EPA). This caused EPA's assets to be off of the Church's balance sheet, and caused EPA's investment income to be off of the Church's income statement.

If you then subsequently only let the apostles see the income statement, they will make spending recommendations and decisions about building temples, building chapels, updating BYU facilities, etc. based on the tithing income it sees on the reports it is given and not on the investment income which is on EPA's financial statements rather than the Church's. The end result is that the Presiding Bishopric and First Presidency can use most of the Church's aggregate income to build up the size of its for-profit asset portfolio rather than anything related to religion or charity, without having to explain themselves to the apostles.

It brings to mind the story from 2018 when the vice president of Zimbabwe asked Elder Neil L. Andersen if the Church could develop some clean water wells in remote areas of Zimbabwe. Elder Andersen told him:

"We want to help in every way we can. We are not a wealthy people but we are good people, and we share what we have."

Elder Andersen meets with Zimbabwe's Vice President Mohadi, pledges support (churchofjesuschrist.org)

I don't need to explain why Elder Andersen's comments might seem less than truthful to people who are aware of the rainy day fund. 

But given the fact that Elder Andersen wasn't authorized to know the scope of the Church's wealth and investment income, he probably thought he was telling the truth. If he would have known the true scope of their assets, he could have honestly said, "While our assets aren't unlimited, we do have enough money to dig wells in every village in Zimbabwe that needs one. Just give me the list of the villages that need wells, and we'll make it happen."

It seems to me that if the apostles knew the true scope of the Church's resources, they'd be tempted to pledge more to those in need. 

And maybe that is why they are kept in the dark?

[pogi]

17 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Here is my guess.

Presuming the Church follows standard accounting practices, before 1997 all of the Church's investment income would show up on its income statement, and all of its commercial assets would show up on its balance sheet. Then in 1997 when EPA was formed, the Church donated most of its for-profit assets to what is, from an accounting point of view, a third-party public charity (i.e. EPA). This caused EPA's assets to be off of the Church's balance sheet, and caused EPA's investment income to be off of the Church's income statement.

If you then subsequently only let the apostles see the income statement, they will make spending recommendations and decisions about building temples, building chapels, updating BYU facilities, etc. based on the tithing income it sees on the reports it is given and not on the investment income which is on EPA's financial statements rather than the Church's. The end result is that the Presiding Bishopric and First Presidency can use most of the Church's aggregate income to build up the size of its for-profit asset portfolio rather than anything related to religion or charity, without having to explain themselves to the apostles.

It brings to mind the story from 2018 when the vice president of Zimbabwe asked Elder Neil L. Andersen if the Church could develop some clean water wells in remote areas of Zimbabwe. Elder Andersen told him:

"We want to help in every way we can. We are not a wealthy people but we are good people, and we share what we have."

Elder Andersen meets with Zimbabwe's Vice President Mohadi, pledges support (churchofjesuschrist.org)

I don't need to explain why Elder Andersen's comments might seem less than truthful to people who are aware of the rainy day fund. 

But given the fact that Elder Andersen wasn't authorized to know the scope of the Church's wealth and investment income, he probably thought he was telling the truth. If he would have known the true scope of their assets, he could have honestly said, "While our assets aren't unlimited, we do have enough money to dig wells in every village in Zimbabwe that needs one. Just give me the list of the villages that need wells, and we'll make it happen."

It seems to me that if the apostles knew the true scope of the Church's resources, they'd be tempted to pledge more to those in need. 

And maybe that is why they are kept in the dark?

I think your explanation of how the funds were donated to the EPA, a third party public charity, which is distinct from the church's tithing balance sheet makes MUCH better sense to me.  With their stewardship over the tithing, it makes sense why donated moneys is something they wouldn't have stewardship over. 

I am less convinced of the rest of your explanation as to why this was done to keep from having to explain themselves to the apostles though.   

I do think you make a good point about how not being aware of the funds makes it much more limiting as to how much services they can offer though.   That is unfortunate. 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

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. 

That is why I explain what my terms mean, and why I asked what you mean. You seem to presume that "direct access" is a "common dialect that we all use in the Church" -- How provincial! 

It would be well to check out the footnotes in Exhibit A of File 25. For example (a) [for the Quorum of the Twelve], access is limited only to matters for which they have stewardship, and there are security measures enforcing this: "Only for departments/areas under their stewardship. Documentation of stewardship is retained by the function that provides confidential information to evidence the appropriateness of the access granted." The seven (7) "No" functions on this list are defined as those outside their stewardship, no matter how much twisting might be done to justify their falling under the nine (9) other "Yes" functions that pertain to donation revenue and expenditures.

These access levels comport with the D&C 107 and 120, which show that it falls to the First Presidency and Presiding Bishopric to steward that which is left over from the more day-to-day operational decisions of the Council on the Disposition of the Tithes, of which the Quorum of the Twelve is a part. This is an ingenious check and balance system and leverages the callings in areas where they are best suited.

 

 

Edited January 20 by CV75

[Tacenda]

18 hours ago, Analytics said:

Here is my guess.

Presuming the Church follows standard accounting practices, before 1997 all of the Church's investment income would show up on its income statement, and all of its commercial assets would show up on its balance sheet. Then in 1997 when EPA was formed, the Church donated most of its for-profit assets to what is, from an accounting point of view, a third-party public charity (i.e. EPA). This caused EPA's assets to be off of the Church's balance sheet, and caused EPA's investment income to be off of the Church's income statement.

If you then subsequently only let the apostles see the income statement, they will make spending recommendations and decisions about building temples, building chapels, updating BYU facilities, etc. based on the tithing income it sees on the reports it is given and not on the investment income which is on EPA's financial statements rather than the Church's. The end result is that the Presiding Bishopric and First Presidency can use most of the Church's aggregate income to build up the size of its for-profit asset portfolio rather than anything related to religion or charity, without having to explain themselves to the apostles.

It brings to mind the story from 2018 when the vice president of Zimbabwe asked Elder Neil L. Andersen if the Church could develop some clean water wells in remote areas of Zimbabwe. Elder Andersen told him:

"We want to help in every way we can. We are not a wealthy people but we are good people, and we share what we have."

Elder Andersen meets with Zimbabwe's Vice President Mohadi, pledges support (churchofjesuschrist.org)

I don't need to explain why Elder Andersen's comments might seem less than truthful to people who are aware of the rainy day fund. 

But given the fact that Elder Andersen wasn't authorized to know the scope of the Church's wealth and investment income, he probably thought he was telling the truth. If he would have known the true scope of their assets, he could have honestly said, "While our assets aren't unlimited, we do have enough money to dig wells in every village in Zimbabwe that needs one. Just give me the list of the villages that need wells, and we'll make it happen."

It seems to me that if the apostles knew the true scope of the Church's resources, they'd be tempted to pledge more to those in need. 

And maybe that is why they are kept in the dark?

Well, some statements like that of Pres. Hinckley saying only the members know how much the church has wasn't correct. Or did he actually think that? I doubt it. Or those that contribute such as tithes. Here's the statement in video. 

https://wasmormon.org/that-information-belongs-to-those-who-made-the-contribution/

Edited January 21 by Tacenda

[CV75]

19 hours ago, Analytics said:

Here is my guess.

Presuming the Church follows standard accounting practices, before 1997 all of the Church's investment income would show up on its income statement, and all of its commercial assets would show up on its balance sheet. Then in 1997 when EPA was formed, the Church donated most of its for-profit assets to what is, from an accounting point of view, a third-party public charity (i.e. EPA). This caused EPA's assets to be off of the Church's balance sheet, and caused EPA's investment income to be off of the Church's income statement.

If you then subsequently only let the apostles see the income statement, they will make spending recommendations and decisions about building temples, building chapels, updating BYU facilities, etc. based on the tithing income it sees on the reports it is given and not on the investment income which is on EPA's financial statements rather than the Church's. The end result is that the Presiding Bishopric and First Presidency can use most of the Church's aggregate income to build up the size of its for-profit asset portfolio rather than anything related to religion or charity, without having to explain themselves to the apostles.

It brings to mind the story from 2018 when the vice president of Zimbabwe asked Elder Neil L. Andersen if the Church could develop some clean water wells in remote areas of Zimbabwe. Elder Andersen told him:

"We want to help in every way we can. We are not a wealthy people but we are good people, and we share what we have."

Elder Andersen meets with Zimbabwe's Vice President Mohadi, pledges support (churchofjesuschrist.org)

I don't need to explain why Elder Andersen's comments might seem less than truthful to people who are aware of the rainy day fund. 

But given the fact that Elder Andersen wasn't authorized to know the scope of the Church's wealth and investment income, he probably thought he was telling the truth. If he would have known the true scope of their assets, he could have honestly said, "While our assets aren't unlimited, we do have enough money to dig wells in every village in Zimbabwe that needs one. Just give me the list of the villages that need wells, and we'll make it happen."

It seems to me that if the apostles knew the true scope of the Church's resources, they'd be tempted to pledge more to those in need. 

And maybe that is why they are kept in the dark?

Speculation is one thing (and in context, it seems the use of “we” is in representation of the members of Zimbabwe…), but the delineation of quorum and council roles in D&C 107 and 120 is pretty clear and simple. Tie everything back to that and you have a system where the First Presidency, Twelve and Presiding Bishopric have a nicely balanced scope of responsibility, which turns out to be reflected in the information they access for their decisions as listed in File 25. It seems LDS Charities covers the wells and, well, well, well, somebody else builds the temple in Harare.

Edited January 21 by CV75

[CV75]

18 hours ago, pogi said:

I think your explanation of how the funds were donated to the EPA, a third party public charity, which is distinct from the church's tithing balance sheet makes MUCH better sense to me.  With their stewardship over the tithing, it makes sense why donated moneys is something they wouldn't have stewardship over. 

I am less convinced of the rest of your explanation as to why this was done to keep from having to explain themselves to the apostles though.   

I do think you make a good point about how not being aware of the funds makes it much more limiting as to how much services they can offer though.   That is unfortunate. 

Offering welfare services isn't their particular primary role, though reasonably there is some coordination of effort. D&C 107 and 120 is pretty clear and simple. Tie everything back to that and you have a system where the First Presidency, Twelve and Presiding Bishopric have a nicely balanced scope of responsibility, which turns out to be reflected in the information they access for their decisions as listed in File 25. It seems LDS Charities covers the wells and, well, well, well, somebody else builds the temple in Harare.

Edited January 21 by CV75

[rodheadlee]

On 1/18/2023 at 8:33 PM, 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?

We were taught the law tithing by a previous Church long before we became members of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints. We were taught to let go of the money after we gave it. What they do with it is God's business.

Edited January 24 by rodheadlee

[JAHS]

7 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

We were taught the law tithing by a previous Church long before we became members of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints. We were taught to let go of the money after we gave it. What they do with it is God's business.

My wife was the same way. She had belonged to another Church before becoming Latter-day Saint and already knew the command to pay tithing. When the missionaries were teaching her she was the one who brought up the subject of tithing first and was in complete agreement that it was something that a member should do.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

My wife was the same way. She had belonged to another Church before becoming Latter-day Saint and already knew the command to pay tithing. When the missionaries were teaching her she was the one who brought up the subject of tithing first and was in complete agreement that it was something that a member should do.

 

8 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

We were taught the law tithing by a previous Church long before we became members of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints. We were taught to let go of the money after we gave it. What they do with it is God's business.

I know this is out of left field, but how were the members in both your/your wife's former church's treated? It feels like the members in the LDS church seem to be the ones donating mostly to charity and the church then distributes their donations, and then it seems the members usually have to spend their own money or use their own money for ward Christmas dinners or ? and in their callings when the budget is real low they use their own funds. Or many church buildings are falling apart and it takes a long time to finally fix the needs of the buildings. It just seems like the members don't get treated as well, IMO. I think the LDS corporate side needs to give up some tithing as well and quit relying heavily on the members. And even the tithing they pay goes to headquarters to do with what they want, after the low budgets get put in locally. 

Edited January 24 by Tacenda

[JAHS]

55 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

 

I know this is out of left field, but how were the members in both your/your wife's former church's treated? It feels like the members in the LDS church seem to be the ones donating mostly to charity and the church then distributes their donations, and then it seems the members usually have to spend their own money or use their own money for ward Christmas dinners or ? and in their callings when the budget is real low they use their own funds. Or many church buildings are falling apart and it takes a long time to finally fix the needs of the buildings. It just seems like the members don't get treated as well, IMO. I think the LDS corporate side needs to give up some tithing as well and quit relying heavily on the members. And even the tithing they pay goes to headquarters to do with what they want, after the low budgets get put in locally. 

Don't know how my wife's former church treated the members but I do know that each quarter all our Church wards get a budget allowance based on the average number of members attending Sacrament meeting during the previous quarter. It's about $10-$12 per member. Our ward gets about $1400 per quarter for budget. Members can submit their receipts and be reimbursed for expenses spent on various activities. Each ward department has a budget that they are expected to use during the year. The budget money a ward gets come from the tithing the Church collects. Many yeas ago the local church members had to pay into the budget on top of tithing but now it is covered by the tithing.  I am sure things can be different depending on the location of the ward or branch in the world.

[rodheadlee]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

 

I know this is out of left field, but how were the members in both your/your wife's former church's treated? It feels like the members in the LDS church seem to be the ones donating mostly to charity and the church then distributes their donations, and then it seems the members usually have to spend their own money or use their own money for ward Christmas dinners or ? and in their callings when the budget is real low they use their own funds. Or many church buildings are falling apart and it takes a long time to finally fix the needs of the buildings. It just seems like the members don't get treated as well, IMO. I think the LDS corporate side needs to give up some tithing as well and quit relying heavily on the members. And even the tithing they pay goes to headquarters to do with what they want, after the low budgets get put in locally. 

My church was a TV church. Minister Dr Gene Scott. They had a location in Glendale that we went to once. Dr Gene Scott was instrumental in teaching us the things we needed to know to readily accept the Book of Mormon when it came to our door. As far as the disbursement of funds we were treated rudely and it wasn't none of our business where the money was spent. We didn't mind because  the teaching was outstanding.

We were  taught that once we donated it wasn't our business where the money went it was between Dr Gene Scott and God.

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

We were taught the law tithing by a previous Church long before we became members of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints. We were taught to let go of the money after we gave it. What they do with it is God's business.

Yea but unfortunately I think GOd is quiet about it.  Question.  If you tithed to an organization like Jim and Tammy Baker ran would you feel the same way?  Especially when you found out what grifters they were?  I gues sGod did not talk to them enough to get them to stop grifting.

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

We were  taught that once we donated it wasn't our business where the money went it was between Dr Gene Scott and God

That is a great way to scam people.  Kenneth Copeland probably tells his adherents something like that as well while he lives in his huge mansion and buys another private jet so he does not have to fly in a regular plane with demons.

[Tacenda]

19 minutes ago, Teancum said:

That is a great way to scam people.  Kenneth Copeland probably tells his adherents something like that as well while he lives in his huge mansion and buys another private jet so he does not have to fly in a regular plane with demons.

That's where I believe the church is honest in their dealings and wouldn't pull a Bakker or Copeland or the others, move. I just wish the corporate side could take care of members better, I know the temple department is doing well, but some church buildings needs some help and also budgets in the wards as well. But I'm loooowwww on the totem pole. 

[LoudmouthMormon]

41 minutes ago, Teancum said:

5 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

We were  taught that once we donated it wasn't our business where the money went it was between Dr Gene Scott and God

That is a great way to scam people.  Kenneth Copeland probably tells his adherents something like that as well while he lives in his huge mansion and buys another private jet so he does not have to fly in a regular plane with demons.

Just another reminder that the powerful leaders of our global church, who oversee billions, who can impact global stock prices, and who can impact elections and ballot measures, live pretty dang frugally when compared to the lives of pretty much everyone else on planet earth who falls into a similar category.

No huge mansions or multiple private jets here.  Living stipend of maybe a couple hundred-k a year, maybe.  Modestly upper class housing, if that, mostly obtained through the leaders' own employment before they were called to a lifetime of ministry.  The absolute lack of parties in Jamaica and hookers and expensive hobbies and a different Casely-Hayford custom tailored suit for every occasion, screams louder than many folks admit.  

Go for it scoffers and boogie-flickers - tell us some more about Elder Uchdorf's wristwatches.  It's literally the best you've got. 

Edited January 24 by LoudmouthMormon

[rodheadlee]

On 1/24/2023 at 2:34 PM, Teancum said:

That is a great way to scam people.  Kenneth Copeland probably tells his adherents something like that as well while he lives in his huge mansion and buys another private jet so he does not have to fly in a regular plane with demons.

Dr Gene Scott didn't have any private jets. You put the money all back in the ministry for TV time. He was a excellent teacher.

[rodheadlee]

On 1/24/2023 at 2:32 PM, Teancum said:

Yea but unfortunately I think GOd is quiet about it.  Question.  If you tithed to an organization like Jim and Tammy Baker ran would you feel the same way?  Especially when you found out what grifters they were?  I gues sGod did not talk to them enough to get them to stop grifting.

I wouldn't contribute to Tammy Baker because the Holy Spirit would prevent me from doing it.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

Dr Gene Scott didn't have any private jets. You put the money all back in the ministry for TV time. He was a excellent teacher.

Never heard of him.  Does not mean there are not scammers out  there that use this technique.  Copeland is one of them.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

I wouldn't contribute to Tammy Baker because the Holy Spirit would prevent me from doing it.

I guess you are just more in tune then the others that got scammed. 🙄

[sunstoned]

On 1/24/2023 at 3:55 PM, Tacenda said:

That's where I believe the church is honest in their dealings and wouldn't pull a Bakker or Copeland or the others, move. I just wish the corporate side could take care of members better, I know the temple department is doing well, but some church buildings needs some help and also budgets in the wards as well. But I'm loooowwww on the totem pole. 

I think it is all about transparency.  People and organizations that have nothing to hide are usually transparent. To me it is a big red flag for a organization that elicits donations should be accountable to disclose what those donations are being used for.   

[Teancum]

On 1/24/2023 at 6:05 PM, LoudmouthMormon said:

Just another reminder that the powerful leaders of our global church, who oversee billions, who can impact global stock prices, and who can impact elections and ballot measures, live pretty dang frugally when compared to the lives of pretty much everyone else on planet earth who falls into a similar category.

No huge mansions or multiple private jets here.  Living stipend of maybe a couple hundred-k a year, maybe.  Modestly upper class housing, if that, mostly obtained through the leaders' own employment before they were called to a lifetime of ministry.  The absolute lack of parties in Jamaica and hookers and expensive hobbies and a different Casely-Hayford custom tailored suit for every occasion, screams louder than many folks admit.  

Go for it scoffers and boogie-flickers - tell us some more about Elder Uchdorf's wristwatches.  It's literally the best you've got. 

If you have followed I commend LDS leaders for NOT living high on the hog.  That said it still does not make a difference as far as the massive wealth the LDS Church is accumulating and whether that is proper for a church that claims to be The Church of Jesus Christ as well as in light of the Church's own book of scripture on wealth and what to do with it found in Jacob 2:17-19.

[LoudmouthMormon]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

That said it still does not make a difference as far as the massive wealth the LDS Church is accumulating and whether that is proper for a church that claims to be The Church of Jesus Christ as well as in light of the Church's own book of scripture on wealth and what to do with it found in Jacob 2:17-19.

 

Quote

Think of your brethren like unto yourselves, and be familiar with all and free with your substance, that they may be rich like unto you.  But before ye seek for riches, seek ye for the kingdom of God. And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to ado good—to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted.

I'm a fan of Jacob 2:17-19, and I'm a fan of the way my church goes about doing such good with it's temporary billions.   It's such a fundamental disagreement on what it means to own productive assets, I doubt it'll ever get bridged.   Y'all have a good day @Teancum.  

[Teancum]

10 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

 

I'm a fan of Jacob 2:17-19, and I'm a fan of the way my church goes about doing such good with it's temporary billions.   It's such a fundamental disagreement on what it means to own productive assets, I doubt it'll ever get bridged.   Y'all have a good day @Teancum.  

It certainly seems apparent to most who can look at this without having to put on the glasses of unquestioning faith in what their leaders do that the church is way out of balance with the admonitions of Jacob 2:17-19.

[rodheadlee]

22 hours ago, Teancum said:

I guess you are just more in tune then the others that got scammed. 🙄

Each person is responsible for their own Revelations.