Putting Church Finances in Perspective

[Teancum]

44 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

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.

Of course I do. 

[Harry T. Clark]

On 3/31/2023 at 10:24 AM, Hamilton Porter 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

Sure, having a rainy day fund, is good common sense.  But that isn't the issue.  How much is necessary for said rainy day fund?  I believe that is the issue, as well as the steps the church took to hide the rainy day fund size from the members.

[Hamilton Porter]

3 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said:

Sure, having a rainy day fund, is good common sense.  But that isn't the issue.  How much is necessary for said rainy day fund?  I believe that is the issue, as well as the steps the church took to hide the rainy day fund size from the members.

The church cited historical poverty as the reason for the fund. Which is what Michael Quinn was saying and Ben Park is confirming.

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said:

Sure, having a rainy day fund, is good common sense.  But that isn't the issue.  How much is necessary for said rainy day fund?  I believe that is the issue, as well as the steps the church took to hide the rainy day fund size from the members.

The church shouldn't have hidden the humongous fund for fear members won't pay their tithing, from what I've seen on this topic, members are proud at how the church was able to accumulate so much wealth. Now just hope the members will understand that they are the biggest reason for that. And hopefully they will take a break and let the church hire back janitors etc. Or not feel compelled to serve two missions let alone one as seniors (recent talk). Or members that need to pay their bills first before tithing, like the original scripture on tithing mentions. The church could soon be wealthy enough to have a trillion, from what people say.

Magnitude of the difference

The magnitude of difference between billion and million can be illustrated with this example of the time scale: A million seconds is 12 days. A billion seconds is 31 years. A trillion seconds is 31,688 years.

[Harry T. Clark]

On 4/1/2023 at 12:19 PM, Hamilton Porter said:

The church cited historical poverty as the reason for the fund. Which is what Michael Quinn was saying and Ben Park is confirming.

That is their reasoning.  I think it's like Reagan when he admitted he traded arms for hostages back in the day.  He said his intentions were to not do it, supposedly, but logic and reason told him that he did, as if he were transported outside of himself looking at what he did and not being able to deny his conduct regardless of his good intentions.  The bad side of him did it, a side he really doesn't know very well, except on his bad days of course.

[Hamilton Porter]

7 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said:

That is their reasoning.  I think it's like Reagan when he admitted he traded arms for hostages back in the day.  He said his intentions were to not do it, supposedly, but logic and reason told him that he did, as if he were transported outside of himself looking at what he did and not being able to deny his conduct regardless of his good intentions.  The bad side of him did it, a side he really doesn't know very well, except on his bad days of course.

Michael Quinn published his book LONG before the SEC report came to light. Even before the Nielsen revelations. 

[Stormin' Mormon]

On 4/1/2023 at 12:14 PM, Harry T. Clark said:

Sure, having a rainy day fund, is good common sense.  But that isn't the issue.  How much is necessary for said rainy day fund?  I believe that is the issue, as well as the steps the church took to hide the rainy day fund size from the members.

Lately, I've been wondering if we've been thinking of the rainy day fund all wrong.  A conventional rainy day fund is money set aside to be used during times of hardships.  I suspect that the Church's "rainy day fund" is not intended to be used, but rather is intended to generate interest, and it is those interest-generated funds that will then be used.  In this respect, it's less of a rainy day fund and more of an endowment, a source of funding that can generate charitable funds in perpetuity.  

I don't have any proof that these moneys are intended to be used more as an endowment than a reserve fund.  But that's how the Perpetual Education Fund operated, so it makes sense.  Also, we see over the last decade a ramping up of charitable giving, to the point that the Church now reports nearly $1 billion in charitable contributions in the last year.  

I think we get hung up on the concept of "rainy day fund" because the funds aren't being used like a rainy day fund.  But they do seem to be consistent with the operation of an endowment.  

Just some idle speculation....

[Tacenda]

Read this partial quote on reddit, don't know if this is going on for sure but what are your thoughts on this, those that don't believe missionaries are doing formerly paid church jobs?

"My son works for the church in the IT department. He was telling me yesterday that he is at the highest position he could get at this point. They had a meeting recently where they announced once all the higher ups retire, they’ll be replaced by service missionaries."

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Read this partial quote on reddit, don't know if this is going on for sure but what are your thoughts on this, those that don't believe missionaries are doing formerly paid church jobs?

"My son works for the church in the IT department. He was telling me yesterday that he is at the highest position he could get at this point. They had a meeting recently where they announced once all the higher ups retire, they’ll be replaced by service missionaries."

I could see it happening.  The best way to keep someone committed is to give them a calling, which includes going on missions.  But there are lots who can’t afford it, can’t manage it because of health or their partner’s health or don’t want to leave family, etc. Makes sense to provide opportunities by going to more and more positions filled with service missionaries.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Read this partial quote on reddit, don't know if this is going on for sure but what are your thoughts on this, those that don't believe missionaries are doing formerly paid church jobs?

"My son works for the church in the IT department. He was telling me yesterday that he is at the highest position he could get at this point. They had a meeting recently where they announced once all the higher ups retire, they’ll be replaced by service missionaries."

I don’t see a problem with church service, Missionaries doing those kind of jobs after people retire. All I care about is that they actually have people that know what they’re doing. I feel like the church’s current IT efforts set the bar really low.

[bluebell]

Just now, Calm said:

I could see it happening.  The best way to keep someone committed is to give them a calling, which includes going on missions.  But there are lots who can’t afford it, can’t manage it because of health or their partner’s health or don’t want to leave family, etc. Makes sense to provide opportunities by going to more and more positions filled with service missionaries.

And a lot of service missionaries are young. We have quite a few in our stake. They are all 19-20 years old.  One worked at the church headquarters in the IT department for his whole service mission. This was a couple of years ago.

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I don’t see a problem with church service, Missionaries doing those kind of jobs after people retire. All I care about is that they actually have people that know what they’re doing. I feel like the church’s current IT efforts set the bar really low.

This and are these older couple service missionaries or young missionaries? Both have problems.

[Tacenda]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And a lot of service missionaries are young. We have quite a few in our stake. They are all 19-20 years old.  One worked at the church headquarters in the IT department for his whole service mission. This was a couple of years ago.

Another comment, which is true, that seniors are being asked to serve two missions now. 

"The Utah Area President that asked senior missionaries serve two missions asked that one of them be a SERVICE MISSION"

And on reddit there were several comments about grandparents etc doing service missions, one was at a church owned hotel or something in another country cleaning bathrooms and other upkeep at the place.

Another comment said their grandparent was in real estate and when he retired he was called to serve in the church's realtor arm serving along side the paid people. 

Another comment was a guy that ran into a church facilities manager that had a badge with Elder on it, so maybe now they are making facilities managers elders.

And this quote: 

"I remember when my former bishop retired, they called him on 3 service missions. He was a construction contractor, so they called him to do the same job he had done before he retired, but this time he had to pay for himself. He built temples and other church buildings, while his wife made sandwiches for the workers.

He recently passed away. He had spent 6 years of his 12 year retirement on a mission, and missed a big chunk of his grandkids' lives, all to do what he had done for work for free."

And this one:

"It's true. If you live near the Morcore go to a Deseret Industries. They used to work like Goodwill. Giving jobs and training to people in need. Now most of the "employees" are unpaid missionaries. I've seen them at Deseret Book too."

And another comment said some seniors are called in to do service missionaries as if it's a calling, and the poster said their grandparents won't turn down a calling. 

Is this right for a tax exempt church with billions soon to be a trillion in land etc. to use free labor? Or am I just wasting my breath? And should elderly people be asked to serve two missions now? And miss their retirement years along side their grandchildren and family, surely this doesn't sit well with some of you.

 

[Tacenda]

I do think there are retirees that want to stay busy so maybe that's great if it's what they truly want. 

[Rain]

Both my husband and I went on a mission.  In the 30+ years since then I have never wanted to serve a mission with my husband as a couple.  Many years ago I told him I have no plans to go with him and I haven't changed my mind.  That said, 

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Another comment, which is true, that seniors are being asked to serve two missions now. 

"The Utah Area President that asked senior missionaries serve two missions asked that one of them be a SERVICE MISSION"

And on reddit there were several comments about grandparents etc doing service missions, one was at a church owned hotel or something in another country cleaning bathrooms and other upkeep at the place.

Another comment said their grandparent was in real estate and when he retired he was called to serve in the church's realtor arm serving along side the paid people. 

Another comment was a guy that ran into a church facilities manager that had a badge with Elder on it, so maybe now they are making facilities managers elders.

And this quote: 

"I remember when my former bishop retired, they called him on 3 service missions. He was a construction contractor, so they called him to do the same job he had done before he retired, but this time he had to pay for himself. He built temples and other church buildings, while his wife made sandwiches for the workers.

He recently passed away. He had spent 6 years of his 12 year retirement on a mission, and missed a big chunk of his grandkids' lives, all to do what he had done for work for free."

My in-laws went on a mission a little over 20 years ago.  He retired early because she so wanted to go. They went to Vanuatu.

My daughter was born just before they went. At the end of their mission my mother-in-law started feeling pain. When she got home she was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.  She died within a few months.  She never met my youngest.

I have never once been sad they went. Not a single time. They spent their lives taking care of their children and grandchildren.  They had 18 months doing something else they loved.  After she was gone my father-in-law had more to look for in his life because of his mission.  He wrote letters and emails to those people.  He took each child who wanted to go back to Vanuatu every other year. My husband loves that time spent with him and the people there.

My parents put in their papers as well.  They were ready to go and then mom started having TIAs.  They still desperately wanted to serve so instead of going somewhere else they served in the family history center in Salt Lake. They LOVED it!

My dad also served on welfare square.  Basically his job was to work with those coming in who needed help. He had homeless coming in.  Addicts.  People at their rock bottom.  It was incredibly healing for him in a time when my addicted, homeless brother wouldn't get the help my dad could offer him.  It also helped him to understand people in these situations better and learn to communicate with my brother better.  

Like I said I'm not going on a mission with my husband, for a number of reasons, but if these people want to serve and are happy then I'm all for it.  If they are not happy then maybe they need to see if that's really where God wanted them.  But as their children we should support them because they have already spent their time with us.  They've already often spent their time with grandchildren.  Let them go and serve in a way that isn't parenting if they want to.

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

And this one:

"It's true. If you live near the Morcore go to a Deseret Industries. They used to work like Goodwill. Giving jobs and training to people in need. Now most of the "employees" are unpaid missionaries. I've seen them at Deseret Book too."

I have no idea where Morcore is, but I do know that down here DI hires refugees so they can have the job they need while their English is poor and they don't have their licensing etc yet.  Then they can go on to other jobs.

I know in Provo my nephew's mission was to work there.  He has some disabilities you might not be aware of if you saw him there.  The cool thing was that part of his mission was to live away from his parents while he worked there.  It was to help him be more self sufficient.

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

And another comment said some seniors are called in to do service missionaries as if it's a calling, and the poster said their grandparents won't turn down a calling. 

Is this right for a tax exempt church with billions soon to be a trillion in land etc. to use free labor? Or am I just wasting my breath? And should elderly people be asked to serve two missions now? And miss their retirement years along side their grandchildren and family, surely this doesn't sit well with some of you.

 

They are adults.  They can decide.  Plenty of people don't voluntarily put in papers. Plenty of them say no.  But really, just like my children became adults, my parents were adults long before I ever was.  If it makes them happy then I'm going to be happy for them.

Edited April 13 by Rain

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I don’t see a problem with church service, Missionaries doing those kind of jobs after people retire. All I care about is that they actually have people that know what they’re doing. I feel like the church’s current IT efforts set the bar really low.

If my son was close to retirement age, I’d be pushing for him to go this route and get the top job and then I would just have him construct the website exactly how I like it.  I would be even nice enough to take requests from board members.  He has 15 years or so to go though.

However, if past is prologue, the site might still be rotten in 15 years.

Edited April 13 by Calm

[Tacenda]

13 minutes ago, Rain said:

Both my husband and I went on a mission.  In the 30+ years since then I have never want to serve a mission with my husband.  Many years ago I told him I have no plans to go with him and I haven't changed my mind.  That said, 

My in-laws went on a mission a little over 20 years ago.  He retired early because she so wanted to go. They went to Vanuatu.

My daughter was born just before they went. At the end of their mission my mother-in-law started feeling pain. When she got home she was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.  She died with a few months.  She never met my youngest.

I have never once been sad they went. Not a single time. They spent their lives taking care of their children and grandchildren.  They had 18 months doing something else they loved.  After she was gone my father-in-law had more to look for in his life because of his mission.  He wrote letters and emails.  He took each child who wanted to go back to Vanuatu every other year. My husband loves that time spent with him and the people there.

My parents put in their papers as well.  They were ready to go and then mom started having TIAs.  They still desperately wanted to serve so instead of going somewhere they served in the family history center in Salt Lake. They LOVED it!

My dad also served on welfare square.  Basically his job was to work with those coming in who needed help. He had homeless coming in.  Addicts.  People at their rock bottom.  It was incredibly healing for him in a time when my addicted, homeless brother wouldn't get the help my dad could offer him.  It also helped him to understand people in these situations better and learn to communicate with my brother better.  

Like I said I'm not going on a mission with my husband, for a number of reasons, but if these people want to serve and are happy then I'm all for it.  If they are not happy then maybe they need to see if that's really where God wanted them.  But as their children we should support them because they have already spent their time with us.  They've already often spent their time with grandchildren.  Let them go and serve in a way that isn't parenting if they want to.

I have no idea where Morcore is, but I do know that down here DI hires refugees so they can have the job they need while their English is poor and they don't have their licensing etc yet.  Then they can go on to other jobs.

I know in Provo my nephew's mission was to work there.  He has some disabilities you might not be aware of if you saw him there.  The cool thing was that part of his mission was to live away from his parents while he worked there.  It was to help him be more self sufficient.

They are adults.  They can decide.  Plenty of people don't voluntarily put in papers. Plenty of them say no.  But really, just like my children became adults, my parents were adults long before I ever was.  If it makes them happy then I'm going to be happy for them.

Agree, they can choose for sure. I just hope they don't feel obligated to do a mission when asked like recently with the area president. I too wanted to serve a senior mission with my husband like your mother-in-law. I'm glad she was able to serve before she passed away.

I wonder though if the church is creating service missions or regular missions that once were paid positions. My friend and her husband served in England, not a cheap place to serve, and she had to spend all her time in a basement doing filing or paper work. They were both very disappointed and even complained about it, I served with her in the Relief Society, she was president. Fairly recently they served another local mission in the Salt Lake area and she liked that much better. 

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Agree, they can choose for sure. I just hope they don't feel obligated to do a mission when asked like recently with the area president. I too wanted to serve a senior mission with my husband like your mother-in-law. I'm glad she was able to serve before she passed away.

I wonder though if the church is creating service missions or regular missions that once were paid positions. My friend and her husband served in England, not a cheap place to serve, and she had to spend all her time in a basement doing filing or paper work. They were both very disappointed and even complained about it, I served with her in the Relief Society, she was president. Fairly recently they served another local mission in the Salt Lake area and she liked that much better. 

I was going to reply to your previous post to me, but then I read Rain’s reply, and it perfectly matched what I would’ve said so I will just ditto what Rain said.

My grandmother served a mission, and my parents seriously considered it, and you put down on the mission papers where you are willing to go/what you can afford. So nobody gets sent to an expensive mission against their will or when they can’t financially afford to serve there.  From my experience, the church is very upfront about what each mission will cost.

The other thing I learned on my mission is that if you say you are willing to serve, then you need to be willing to serve wherever you are placed. Some areas/jobs are probably better than others in a lot of ways but you’re there to do what is needed, not what you want.  And if filing in a basement is what’s needed then that’s where you should be. I don’t judge your friend at all for not liking it or having complaints. I am a whiny person and I would more than likely have reacted exactly the same.

Just speaking generally though, you can’t blame the church because you went to a place that was expensive or because you ended up having to do service that wasn’t any fun.  Everybody knows that that is a possibility when they put their papers in.  Or at least they should if they’ve spent any time at all around other people who have served.

Edited April 13 by bluebell

[Kenngo1969]

39 minutes ago, bluebell said:

...  [Y]ou’re there [on a mission] to do what is needed, not what you want.  And if filing in a basement is what’s needed then that’s where you should be. I don’t judge your friend at all for not liking it or having complaints. I am a whiny person and I would more than likely have reacted exactly the same. ... [emphasis added by Kenngo1969]

 

Funny, that side of you just ... doesn't come across here.     (According to some [including one professional, and, surely, he ought to know, since he's got all of the alphabet soup after his name] (never mind the fact that he only saw me once for a few hours)] I'm a "whiny person" too.

Perhaps you and I both can "have some crackers and cheese to go with our whine"?    

   

Edited April 13 by Kenngo1969

[Rain]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I was going to reply to your previous post to me, but then I read Rain’s reply, and it perfectly matched what I would’ve said so I will just ditto what Rain said.

My grandmother served a mission, and my parents seriously considered it, and you put down on the mission papers where you are willing to go/what you can afford. So nobody gets sent to an expensive mission against their will or when they can’t financially afford to serve there.  From my experience, the church is very upfront about what each mission will cost.

The other thing I learned on my mission is that if you say you are willing to serve, then you need to be willing to serve wherever you are placed. Some areas/jobs are probably better than others in a lot of ways but you’re there to do what is needed, not what you want.  And if filing in a basement is what’s needed then that’s where you should be.

I don't think that is completely true though.  From what I've understood couples usually get a lot of say in where they go or what they do.  It's just that an awful lot of couples go in with "I'll go wherever the Lord wants" and don't realize that usually the Lord wants you to be happy and it is ok to do some choosing.

And really what it comes down to is "did you ask the Lord about it?" Usually what I've found is very rarely does he actually have me doing something I dislike doing and it is never for long.  

Men are that they might have joy.  I think sometimes we definitely need an attitude adjustment to feel that joy, but most of the time we need to be doing what naturally brings us the joy.

 

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I don’t judge your friend at all for not liking it or having complaints. I am a whiny person and I would more than likely have reacted exactly the same.

Just speaking generally though, you can’t blame the church because you went to a place that was expensive or because you ended up having to do service that wasn’t any fun.  Everybody knows that that is a possibility when they put their papers in.  Or at least they should if they’ve spent any time at all around other people who have served.

They definitely should be honest on their papers as a couple and this will help a lot! If the mission is too expensive they either figured things wrong or they decided to have "faith" and put a higher number on them than they should have - at least according to my understanding of the couple's papers.

[bluebell]

11 hours ago, Rain said:

I don't think that is completely true though.  From what I've understood couples usually get a lot of say in where they go or what they do.  It's just that an awful lot of couples go in with "I'll go wherever the Lord wants" and don't realize that usually the Lord wants you to be happy and it is ok to do some choosing.

And really what it comes down to is "did you ask the Lord about it?" Usually what I've found is very rarely does he actually have me doing something I dislike doing and it is never for long.  

Men are that they might have joy.  I think sometimes we definitely need an attitude adjustment to feel that joy, but most of the time we need to be doing what naturally brings us the joy.

I think this is one of the few times when we are in disagreement (which of course is fine!).   

In general, there are some things that no one likes to do, but that still need to be done, so someone is going to have to do it while disliking doing it.  There's no reason that someone shouldn't be me sometimes.  I think though that my disagreement mostly comes from my personal experience where one of my biggest joys came from being asked to do something I found pretty miserable.  

From my perspective, some roads are just miserable roads to walk but they need to be walked anyway because they lead somewhere important.  But sometimes we make our own misery because we think that God finds value in misery for misery's sake or something.  If I'm understanding you correctly, I agree that that's not who God is or what He wants for us.  I don't think that suffering is a godly attribute, though I do think that suffering can sometimes serve a purpose and will have to be endured.

 

Quote

They definitely should be honest on their papers as a couple and this will help a lot! If the mission is too expensive they either figured things wrong or they decided to have "faith" and put a higher number on them than they should have - at least according to my understanding of the couple's papers.

Agreed, honesty is important.  Good information leads to good inspiration.  

[Rain]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I think this is one of the few times when we are in disagreement (which of course is fine!).   

In general, there are some things that no one likes to do, but that still need to be done, so someone is going to have to do it while disliking doing it.  There's no reason that someone shouldn't be me sometimes.  I think though that my disagreement mostly comes from my personal experience where one of my biggest joys came from being asked to do something I found pretty miserable.  

From my perspective, some roads are just miserable roads to walk but they need to be walked anyway because they lead somewhere important.  But sometimes we make our own misery because we think that God finds value in misery for misery's sake or something.  If I'm understanding you correctly, I agree that that's not who God is or what He wants for us.  I don't think that suffering is a godly attribute, though I do think that suffering can sometimes serve a purpose and will have to be endured.

 

Agreed, honesty is important.  Good information leads to good inspiration.  

I'm not sure we disagree.  I just think too often people do things assuming they are supposed to do things they don't like because someone else in a higher church position asked it of them.  They assume that person has all the inspiration and they should just do it even if they hate it.  

If it's something they don't like I think it's especially important to find their own inspiration about it and if the inspiration they get says something different then they really to talk to their leaders instead of just suffer through it.

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don’t see a problem with church service, Missionaries doing those kind of jobs after people retire. All I care about is that they actually have people that know what they’re doing. I feel like the church’s current IT efforts set the bar really low.

Sure.  A church worth $250 billion with $180 billion in mostly liquid assets should push their members to give more and more free time. Clean the chapel. Do a mission to a church welfare site, and on and on. Give us more of your time for free so we can become a trillion $ church.

[Analytics]

On 3/28/2023 at 11:13 PM, 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?

I wouldn't call it "theoretical wealth." It is the actual market value of the wealth, based on values set by active markets.

Yes, the market value of these assets are volatile, and if the market value would likely crash when the hypothetical rainy day comes along. However, this is a risk they chose when they allocated their investment portfolio this way. Presuming they know what they're doing, investing in equities is proof that their goal isn't to have cash available for a rainy day, but rather is to grow the size of the portfolio over the long haul.

[bluebell]

42 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I wouldn't call it "theoretical wealth." It is the actual market value of the wealth, based on values set by active markets.

Yes, the market value of these assets are volatile, and if the market value would likely crash when the hypothetical rainy day comes along. However, this is a risk they chose when they allocated their investment portfolio this way. Presuming they know what they're doing, investing in equities is proof that their goal isn't to have cash available for a rainy day, but rather is to grow the size of the portfolio over the long haul.

I guess I meant, doesn't it just exist on paper at this point?  Because the values set by active markets change day to day and sometimes u-turn on a dime.

Like, we can say it's worth 1 billion dollars today (easy number picked for the sake of argument) but could be worth something substantially less tomorrow, next week, next month, etc., right?  The money exists on paper but not in real life, and what determines the amount can be volatile?

That's what I'm wondering.

Edited April 13 by bluebell