Putting Church Finances in Perspective

[jkwilliams]

Nice piece from Ben Parks:

https://theconversation.com/behind-the-latter-day-saint-churchs-vast-wealth-are-two-centuries-of-financial-hits-and-misses-201051

“Yet many believers emphasize that their tithing’s purpose is not merely to add to the church’s coffers but to help build the kingdom of God – their donations are primarily offered for spiritual reasons, not worldly ones. And investments are also a safety net for the faith’s growth: Leaders likely hope it can support rapidly growing membership in lower-income countries. 

“As absurd as it may be to call a $100 billion dollar portfolio a “rainy day” fund, the church’s turbulent history may have led leaders to see it as just that.”

[Maestrophil]

40 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

As absurd as it may be

Interesting article - looses journalism points from me for lines like the above - a journalist would say "as absurd as it may seem"

 

[Hamilton Porter]

He's a scholar; he must be familiar with Michael Quinn's book on church finances.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Hamilton Porter said:

He's a scholar; he must be familiar with Michael Quinn's book on church finances.

I'd say that's a safe bet, as he cites Quinn in the article. 

[carbon dioxide]

People think that the church is sitting on a hundred billion dollars in cash in a vault somewhere.  It has its "money" invested in assets that go up and down based on the market.  Tens of billions can be made and vanish away in a single day.   People get upset when people make a lot of money but not so much when they lose.  Bernie Sanders does not mention the billions that billionaires have lost over the last year.  He will refer back to the pandemic on how much they made.  That is a talking point.  The pandemic is over and he will not move forward but stick with the pandemic thing for the next 10 years.   Mentioning how many billions these people have lost since the pandemic is not a great talking point. 

Edited March 28, 2023 by carbon dioxide

[Calm]

Not bad. Avoids overdramatizing while providing useful context, historical and current. 

[jkwilliams]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not bad. Avoids overdramatizing while providing useful context, historical and current. 

I thought so, too. The church's past history of near disasters financially helps make the current "rainy day fund" more understandable. At least to me. Ben's work is always interesting. Loved his book.

[Teancum]

43 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I thought so, too. The church's past history of near disasters financially helps make the current "rainy day fund" more understandable. At least to me. Ben's work is always interesting. Loved his book.

I understand the church has had rocky finances in the past. However, no I don't think that justifies its massive wealth accumulation now.  $180 billion of non operating assets. $80 billion of operating assets.  It will be a trillion $ organization by 2040 if it does not change its approach.  It is quite secure.  Do some good with all the $$.

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I understand the church has had rocky finances in the past. However, no I don't think that justifies its massive wealth accumulation now.  $180 billion of non operating assets. $80 billion of operating assets.  It will be a trillion $ organization by 2040 if it does not change its approach.  It is quite secure.  Do some good with all the $$.

I don’t think Ben is “justifying” anything, just explaining why the church feels they need to do it. 

[Teancum]

13 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don’t think Ben is “justifying” anything, just explaining why the church feels they need to do it. 

He may not be.  But others might use it thus. And to use it to try to explain it sort of seems like justifying it. At least to me. I read his comments.

[Hamilton Porter]

4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Loved his book.

My sister got me his Nauvoo book for my birthday. Haven't read it though. I asked the haters what's wrong and no one would tell me.

 

[Hamilton Porter]

7 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

And investments are also a safety net for the faith’s growth: Leaders likely hope it can support rapidly growing membership in lower-income countries. 

“As absurd as it may be to call a $100 billion dollar portfolio a “rainy day” fund, the church’s turbulent history may have led leaders to see it as just that.”

Grateful for academics. Too much redneck bait on the internet.

Between the church's historical trauma with poverty, to the fact that tithing dollars aren't going to mansions for the Brethren, to our massively successful welfare program, to $1 billion in humanitarian outlays last year, I think money's all going into the right places.

(If the church can keep the $1 billion up annually).

Edited March 29, 2023 by Hamilton Porter

[Tacenda]

30 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Grateful for academics. Too much redneck bait on the internet.

Between the church's historical trauma with poverty, to the fact that tithing dollars aren't going to mansions for the Brethren, to our massively successful welfare program, to $1 billion in humanitarian outlays last year, I think money's all going into the right places.

(If the church can keep the $1 billion up annually).

Certainly the rainy day fund isn't for the millennium is it? That doesn't make any sense, not that you said it, but it's been said by, I don't remember the leader's name, who did. But that's just plain crazy and Jesus wouldn't be too happy about that. 

[Hamilton Porter]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Certainly the rainy day fund isn't for the millennium is it? That doesn't make any sense, not that you said it, but it's been said by, I don't remember the leader's name, who did. But that's just plain crazy and Jesus wouldn't be too happy about that. 

For something akin to the Kirtland banking crisis.

[OGHoosier]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Certainly the rainy day fund isn't for the millennium is it? That doesn't make any sense, not that you said it, but it's been said by, I don't remember the leader's name, who did. But that's just plain crazy and Jesus wouldn't be too happy about that. 

For within the Millennium? Probably not. For the lead-up to the Millennium? Possibly.

Right now the world exists in a state of relative peace and order, primarily due to the integration of the internationalized market backstopped by the power of the US dollar, which is backstopped by the power of the US military. These two backstops are not without challengers, and unless we assume that American hegemony is evergreen and immortal, we should prepare for the periods of global economic instability and resource insecurity. 

When empires collapse (and the US certainly is one, though it is the best camouflaged empire in history), it is rarely a pretty sight.

Btw, I'm not predicting the US itself will collapse, but the US relationship to the EU states and many of our "partner nations" is quasi-imperial in many respects. We have exclusive military control over the territories, our money and investment capital influences their internal politics, and the Bretton Woods system enables the United States to compel the international capital economy to subsidize its sovereign debt. The United States of America, as a state, is unlikely to collapse (though it looks like it's Balkanizing). The American Empire is more vulnerable and it is unlikely that we will be able to project the same power that we can now forever.

Edited March 29, 2023 by OGHoosier

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

For within the Millennium? Probably not. For the lead-up to the Millennium? Possibly.

Right now the world exists in a state of relative peace and order, primarily due to the integration of the internationalized market backstopped by the power of the US dollar, which is backstopped by the power of the US military. These two backstops are not without challengers, and unless we assume that American hegemony is evergreen and immortal, we should prepare for the periods of global economic instability and resource insecurity. 

Also, isn’t a lot of the rainy day fun theoretical wealth?  The kind where a bad economic depression could halve it (or worse) over the course of a week?

[OGHoosier]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Also, isn’t a lot of the rainy day fun theoretical wealth?  The kind where a bad economic depression could halve it (or worse) over the course of a week?

Yep. 

I wonder how Ensign Peak has reacted to the fall of Signature Bank and Silicon Valley Bank. US banking system not looking so hot right now.

Edited March 29, 2023 by OGHoosier

[Peacefully]

5 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

Yep. 

I'm wonder how Ensign Peak has reacted to the fall of Signature Bank and Silicon Valley Bank. US banking system not looking so hot right now.

My thoughts exactly. 

[Harry T. Clark]

On 3/28/2023 at 3:03 PM, jkwilliams said:

I don’t think Ben is “justifying” anything, just explaining why the church feels they need to do it. 

How does he know how the church feels one way or another?  Also, why not just tell the members if that is how the leaders feel?  Why use a proxy if that is what they are doing?

[Hamilton Porter]

38 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said:

How does he know how the church feels one way or another?  Also, why not just tell the members if that is how the leaders feel?  Why use a proxy if that is what they are doing?

Church did say it. It released a statement a few years ago. Keep up.

[Smiley McGee]

On 3/28/2023 at 6:20 PM, Hamilton Porter said:

My sister got me his Nauvoo book for my birthday. Haven't read it though. I asked the haters what's wrong and no one would tell me.

 

Susan Easton Black apparently wasn’t a fan: link

I thought it provided an interesting perspective on the political tensions and resulting civic developments during the Nauvoo period. It isn’t hagiography, which I think makes some people uncomfortable. 

Edited March 30, 2023 by Smiley McGee

[Harry T. Clark]

On 3/29/2023 at 9:50 PM, Hamilton Porter said:

Church did say it. It released a statement a few years ago. Keep up.

If it isn't too much trouble for you, I'd appreciate a link to this statement to which you refer.  I'd hate to not be up on each and every statement said.

[Teancum]

On 3/28/2023 at 9:23 PM, Hamilton Porter said:

Grateful for academics. Too much redneck bait on the internet.

Between the church's historical trauma with poverty, to the fact that tithing dollars aren't going to mansions for the Brethren, to our massively successful welfare program, to $1 billion in humanitarian outlays last year, I think money's all going into the right places.

(If the church can keep the $1 billion up annually).

Well with $180 billion in non operating assets that are fairly liquid a billion a year should not be to tough.

[Hamilton Porter]

33 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said:

If it isn't too much trouble for you, I'd appreciate a link to this statement to which you refer.  I'd hate to not be up on each and every statement said.

I'm there for ya buddy.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2018/07/the-spiritual-foundations-of-church-financial-self-reliance?lang=eng

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-finances-and-a-growing-global-church

[Hamilton Porter]

24 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Well with $180 billion in non operating assets that are fairly liquid a billion a year should not be to tough.

Do you know the difference between a stock variable and a flow variable? $180 billion is a stock, $1 billion a year is a flow.