Gaddy Lawsuit Judgement

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

he Church has responsibilities that we as individuals don't have, and the duration of those responsibilities are not reflected in our individual lives.

For me, I don't feel like I have a responsibility to provide financially for much of anything beyond me and my wife.  My children are now adults and should not look to me to provide for them in any long-term sense.  Their lives are their responsibilities.  If I end up being able to leave them some inheritance, that would be nice.  But it's not an obligation.

In contrast, the Church has responsibilities for millions, and in some ways billions, of people.  The programs and mandates of the Church need to be managed and funded in multi-generational ways that do not apply to us as individuals.  The Church's stewardship is effectively perpetual, ours is not.  The Church has stewardship over continuing the programs and mandates of the Church, we do not. 

As someone with a child who will be dependent on others her entire life unless things dramatically change (and even if she can hold a job, because she lacks more than a basic education at this point, she will likely have low income even if she eventually can be employable) while requiring consistency, stability, and her own space and ability to control what she is capable of controling, we are planning her long term care along with our own needs as we age. All our long term financial decisions are about leaving as much of our wealth as possible for her so that it won’t be a burden for whoever takes over administering her estate because having another adult with strong preferences on the way things should be and moderate needs (shopping and cleaning for her and taking her to doctors’ appointments) hanging around is going to be hard enough.  Trying to imagine what life will be like for her in 40 years when she hits her senior years and planning for that is ridiculous. The only thing we can do is provide a financial resource for her to draw on so she can adapt as times change…and hope that the economy never tanks so she loses that cushion. 

Expanding that to cover millions of individuals with a variety of needs in a myriad of situations, it is easy for me to see why the Church is choosing to continue grow their fund with a significant amount of the leftovers after current and known upcoming expenses are covered even with the amount that’s already in there.

I have no doubt they have calculated expected expenses from a number of likely positive and negative scenarios for the future including where there is much reduced tithing as well as investment income and have projected ways to keep the Church able to address its commitments to its members.  Whether those calculations account for the current level of funds or they add a large safety cushion for the unexpected like we are trying with our daughter, that I don’t have a clue about.  My faith allows for both the Lord to be highly involved in inspiring leaders on how to approach financial management of the Church or the Lord being involved much less, perhaps all the way down to barely there.  Given past behaviour of church leaders where major mistakes did occur, I believe this is likely one area the Lord feels hands off is usually more appropriate…which suggests to me church leaders have likely learned what kind of direction they can expect from God in this area by looking at what past leaders have reported and they are choosing to act based on that analysis (I get that nonbelievers will most likely assume the apparent/likely low involvement of God in this management is actually little to no involvement, either because he isn’t directing our faith any more than any other or he doesn’t exist).

Edited May 4 by Calm

[webbles]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Are you familiar with Church's Financial Standard #6230? According to that document, the Quorum of the Twelve does not have access to the Church's balance sheet items (i.e. cash, investment securities, other assets, liabilities, net assets)--this information is outside the stewardship of the apostles, and the Financial Standard says, "Employees must not divulge financial information outside of approved stewardships." Given that, the story seems eminently plausible. What part do you find implausible? The part where the President of the Twelve asked to see what the Church's investments were, or the part where the head of EPA followed the Church's Financial Standards?

I'm familiar with it.  I would also bet that President Packer was familiar with it.  So why would he ask to the see the Church's investments when he knows he isn't permitted to see it?  That's what I find implausible.  Or if he wasn't familiar with it, then Clark just had to point him to it.  I don't see it as President Packer was trying to get around the rules or trying to see something that he knew he couldn't see or that he was angry/disappointed he couldn't see it.  The way the story goes, it makes a big deal out of it but that is what I don't think happened.

[smac97]

On 5/2/2026 at 3:59 PM, Analytics said:

My suspicion is that he was not telling the full truth.

Okay.  Apart from Nielsen, do you have any evidence to support this suspicion?

On 5/2/2026 at 3:59 PM, Analytics said:

Do you think the Church started showing the Council on the Deposition of Tithes how much money Ensign Peak Advisors has and makes? I don't.

Could you clarify how that is a problem or concern?  As to matters of governance, why is oversight by the First Presidency and the Presiding Bishopric insufficient?

On 5/2/2026 at 3:59 PM, Analytics said:

Remember the story of Boyd K. Packer, President of the Twelve and one heartbeat away from being the prophet, went to Ensign Peak Advisors and asking Roger Clarke to see what was going on there so he'd be ready to take over the Church if God-forbid he were to become prophet? Remember how Clarke had to awkardly explain to him sorry, that is above your pay grade?

I do recall this 2019 Tribune article:

Quote

Lars Nielsen said he and his twin brother wrote a 74-page synopsis of the IRS complaint. Here are three excerpts:

Shutting out an apostle

“Boyd K. Packer, when he was next in line to succeed then-church President Thomas S. Monson, came to [EPA President Roger] Clarke wanting to know how much Ensign Peak had amassed and the details of its structure. Mr. Clarke told Mr. Packer that he could not share such details.

“Mr. Packer said, ‘I think I should know. I’m the most senior apostle and president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and I’m a breath away from being the next prophet. I think I should be prepared.’

“Mr. Clarke reaffirmed that he had been instructed not to reveal that information to Mr. Packer, who went away perturbed and unsatisfied, as related to the whistleblower by Richard B. Willes, the head of fixed income at EPA at the time. Mr. Packer died before he could join the First Presidency and know the value of EPA.”

So we have 1) the Tribune saying what 2) Nielsen said 3) Richard Willes said 4) Elder Packer and Bro. Clarke said.

Triple or quadruple hearsay.  And I could not immediately find the Nielsen complaint itself, so I can't say how Mr. Willes would have been sufficiently aware of the contents of the communication between Elder Packer and Bro. Clarke as to be able to quote Elder Packer verbatim.

On 5/2/2026 at 3:59 PM, Analytics said:

Am I wrong?

In speculating based on multiple hearsay?  Hard to falsify or verify speculation.

On 5/2/2026 at 3:59 PM, Analytics said:

When did the Church say its annual expenses would now be more than annual tithing receipts? Abandoning Hinckley's fixed principle would be a big deal. I'd love to hear about it.

I think the "fixed principles" will remain in place.  I sure hope so, as they have worked very well.

On 5/2/2026 at 3:59 PM, Analytics said:

Nielsen's account is consistent with the "fixed principles" of how the Council for the Deposition of Tithes work, as explained by Hinckley and Bednar.

Except it's not "Nielsen's account."  It's hearsay.

On 5/2/2026 at 3:59 PM, Analytics said:

Nielsen's account is consistent with Church's Financial Standard #6230, "Accessing and Securing Financial Information", which shows that the majority of the council on the deposition of tithes--the rank-and-file apostles--aren't allowed to know how much money the Church has saved, nor how much money these assets are generating.

I still don't understand how this is a concern.  The finances of the Church fall under the stewardship of the Presiding Bishopric.  Those men, and those in the First Presidency, have plenary access.  I assume the Church Auditing Department also has plenary access.  

Could you elaborate on the controversy?  You seem to presuppose that the Q12 not having comparable access is some sort of scandalous or problematic thing.  Do you also think the members of the Seventy should have plenary access?  The General Officers?  

On 5/2/2026 at 3:59 PM, Analytics said:

Do you believe my view of this has dated? Has Financial Standard #6230 been rescinded or updated? Are the apostles now allowed to know what the Church's assets are? If not, how could they possibly be expected to make decisions of how to allocate these resources?

I'm sorry, but there seem to be some unstated presuppositions that either I do not know about or do not share.

The Council on the Disposition of the Tithes seems to exercise stewardship over the funds which are allocated to fund the operations of the Church.  Would you agree with that? 

The Council would also seem to be aware of, and on board with, a portion of tithes being sent to EPA for investment/reserve purposes.  Is it your belief that the Council has particularized supervisory/oversight responsibilities pertaining to EPA and how it handles those funds? 

On 5/2/2026 at 3:59 PM, Analytics said:

If the Church radically changes its internal policies and presented these assets and investment income to the Council of the Deposition of tithes, and if it officially revoked the "fixed principle" of always living on less than its annual tithing revenue, I'd consider EPA integrated in the Church in a functional sense. But as long as the apostles aren't allowed to know about these assets and investment income, it is not integrated in a real-world way.

Okay.  This helps.  What is it about the Q12 that is dispositive relative to EPA being "integrated" or not?  

You seem to presuppose that the Q12 should have oversight responsibilities, and that the current levels of oversight are improper/scandalous.  Is that accurate?  If so, what is the nexus between A) Q12 access to EPA info and B) EPA being an "integrated auxiliary."  Where did nexus come from?  Who established it?  When?  Where?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

As someone with a child who will be dependent on others her entire life unless things dramatically change (and even if she can hold a job, because she lacks more than a basic education at this point, she will likely have low income even if she eventually can be employable) while requiring consistency, stability, and her own space and ability to control what she is capable of controling, we are planning her long term care along with our own needs as we age. All our long term financial decisions are about leaving as much of our wealth as possible for her so that it won’t be a burden for whoever takes over administering her estate because having another adult with strong preferences on the way things should be and moderate needs (shopping and cleaning for her and taking her to doctors’ appointments) hanging around is going to be hard enough.  Trying to imagine what life will be like for her in 40 years when she hits her senior years and planning for that is ridiculous. The only thing we can do is provide a financial resource for her to draw on so she can adapt as times change…and hope that the economy never tanks so she loses that cushion. 

Expanding that to cover millions of individuals with a variety of needs in a myriad of situations, it is easy for me to see why the Church is choosing to continue grow their fund with a significant amount of the leftovers after current and known upcoming expenses are covered even with the amount that’s already in there.

Thank you for sharing this perspective.

The Church originated in the U.S., but much of its mandate will be carried out in a world-wide way.  My surmise is that the United States and Canada are by far the largest net contributors. A few other developed nations (such as the United Kingdom, Australia, and possibly New Zealand or Germany) are thought to be close to or at self-sufficiency, but exact figures are not public.  The vast majority of countries and territories where the Church operates receive net subsidies from the central Church.

Membership and activity figures in the U.S. and Canada seem to have slowed a lot, and over time may decline.  If and when that happens, the financial condition of the Church may be adversely impacted in some big ways.

I hope the Saints throughout the world are able to continue to pay tithing.  I also trust that the Brethren can scale expenditures up and down as necessary to perpetuate its mandated responsibilities.

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

I have no doubt they have calculated expected expenses from a number of likely positive and negative scenarios for the future including where there is much reduced tithing as well as investment income and have projected ways to keep the Church able to address its commitments to its members.  Whether those calculations account for the current level of funds or they add a large safety cushion for the unexpected like we are trying with our daughter, that I don’t have a clue about.  My faith allows for both the Lord to be highly involved in inspiring leaders on how to approach financial management of the Church or the Lord being involved much less, perhaps all the way down to barely there.  

Same here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 hours ago, webbles said:

I'm familiar with it.  I would also bet that President Packer was familiar with it.  So why would he ask to the see the Church's investments when he knows he isn't permitted to see it?  That's what I find implausible. 

This is particularly so given that the Office of the Presiding Bishop is, by scripture, charged with "administering all temporal things" (D&C 107:68).  Managing the Church's money, or the oversight of managing it, sure seems pretty "temporal." See also here:

Quote

In 1977 a major organizational restructuring took place within the Church under the direction of the First Presidency. With the significant growth in Church membership the Presiding Bishopric was assigned much broader responsibilities for temporal administration throughout the world. Under the direction of the Presiding Bishopric, directors for temporal affairs were sent to a number of international locations to supervise the administration of the construction of meetinghouses and temples, the maintenance of membership records, and the preparation and distribution of scriptures and other curriculum materials. Departments at Church headquarters responsible for temporal operations were also assigned to the Presiding Bishopric for their direction. Since that time, the Presiding Bishopric has appointed managing directors for the various departments that support activities of the directors of temporal affairs, which include finance and records, LDS foundation, printing services, distribution of curriculum materials, purchasing, scripture and curriculum translation, temple clothing production, transportation, information systems and communications, security, investments, temples and special project construction and remodeling, real estate acquisitions and sales, meetinghouse construction, Welfare production and processing, LDS Social Services, and property management.

In 1986 the First Presidency called area presidencies to give supervision to ecclesiastical activities within defined geographical areas of the world. These area presidencies presently give direct supervision to directors for temporal affairs in international areas and to Welfare and physical facilities activities in the United States and Canada. The Presiding Bishopric, along with headquarters departments, provides training, evaluation, manpower planning, technical support, and program design to assist area presidencies in their roles.

This is the written "order of things."

In 1996, Elder Packer gave a now well-known address: "The Unwritten Order of Things."  In this BYU devotional address, Elder Packer emphasized that many Latter-day Saint protocols—seating, leadership deference, and administrative decorum—are often learned through observation rather than written in handbooks. It focuses on maintaining order, dignity, and spiritual focus in church administration.

Elder Packer (!) was arguably the last of the Old School "doctrinaire" apostles.  It it strains credulity that he would be ignorant of the responsibilities of the Presiding Bishop, or that he would seek to circumvent both the written and unwritten "order of things" by barging into EPA in the way the multiple-hearsay anecdote describes.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 4 by smac97

[Analytics]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

When it comes to the finances of the Church as administered by the Brethren, I think the Parable is intended to be both figurative and literal.

I wouldn't think Jesus values money in the way that the master does in that parable, but if you think He does, I won't argue with you about your religious beliefs. 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

By "buried or hidden away" I was referring to the Parable, in which the third servant did nothing to invest and enlarge the talent he had been given, and instead literally "buried" and "hid" it in the earth.

If I were interpreting the parable, I would think the servant in the parable being afraid to invest the money and instead burying it in the ground is exactly like the brethren being afraid to use the money to further their mission and instead burying it in an investment account. But again, if you think Jesus' objective is gaining worldly riches like the master in the parable, you are free to interpret it that way (but if that is the case, shouldn't "getting rich" become a numbered mission of the church?)

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

For me, I don't feel like I have a responsibility to provide financially for much of anything beyond me and my wife.  My children are now adults and should not look to me to provide for them in any long-term sense.  Their lives are their responsibilities.  If I end up being able to leave them some inheritance, that would be nice.  But it's not an obligation.

In contrast, the Church has responsibilities for millions, and in some ways billions, of people.  The programs and mandates of the Church need to be managed and funded in multi-generational ways that do not apply to us as individuals.  The Church's stewardship is effectively perpetual, ours is not.  The Church has stewardship over continuing the programs and mandates of the Church, we do not.  

For me, I work at an insurance company that has tens of thousands of complicated insurance contracts that generate billions in cash flows, many of which will be in force for 60 years into the future and beyond. I have the responsibility to evaluate whether or not the reserves of this company are adequate, to present my analysis to the Board of Directors, to certify the reserve adequacy in financial statements that are submitted to regulators, and to write and sign detailed reports about how I came to this conclusion. I have had arduous education, experience, and training to become qualified to do this. And I'm good enough at it to have been hired as an expert witness in billion-dollar lawsuits about these issues.

I'm not trying to appeal to my own authority on this, but you should be aware that "are the reserves adequate" in the context of a large institution with a long time horizon is something I think about all day every day.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Also, is it possible that Joseph, while managing Egypt's foodstuffs during times of plenty, also encountered calls for "the reserves" to be "optimized, not maximized"?  Put another way, can your worldview accommodate the possibility that the Brethren are aware of things of which you are not, and that these things may have an substantial impact on the "optimization" versus "maximization" thing you reference above?

All I can do is base my analysis on what they've said. Bednar said:

In that first council meeting I was impressed by the simplicity of the principles that guided our deliberations and decisions. In the financial operations of the Church, two basic and fixed principles are observed. First, the Church lives within its means and does not spend more than it receives. Second, a portion of the annual income is set aside as a reserve for contingencies and unanticipated needs. For decades the Church has taught its membership the principle of setting aside additional food, fuel, and money to take care of emergencies that might arise. The Church as an institution simply follows the same principles that are taught repeatedly to the members.

My view is based on these meeting working exactly as Bednar described, with additional information such as what Nielsen said, what Church's Financial Standard #6230 says, and the fact that we now know how big the funds are. 

Individuals saving the way the Church saves actually makes sense. That is because as individuals, we have far more risk than the Church. If I lose my job, I lose 100% of my income. In contrast, if there is a major recession and unemployment shoots up to, say, 20%, then the Church's tithing revenue might go down 10% to 20%. That difference means individuals are at much greater risk than the Church, and therefore should be saving more. And unlike the Church, individuals in all likelihood will become disabled or otherwise forced out of the workforce and will need to survive on their savings. The Church doesn't face that risk. In the year 2046, I'll need my savings to survive. In contrast, in 2046 the Church will have that year's tithing revenue to survive.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Is it possible that the Brethren would not want to "cut expenses" as to its various mandates, particularly if they could avoid such cutting by maintaining substantial reserves?

They are the ones who said it is a "basic and fixed principle" that "the Church lives within its means and does not spend more than it receives." And its proven its commitment to doing just that in both the Great Recession and the COVID-19 pandemic. 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Could you elaborate?  "Sufficient" for what?  What metric are you using here?

The professional way of answering this question is to run financial simulations through a wide variety plausible economic scenarios, and to consider what its income and expenses would be in each scenario. Reserves would be considered "sufficient" if reserves, interest income, and tithing are enough to cover expenses in every plausible scenario.

Of course this type of analysis makes more sense if the "basic and fixed principle" was that the Church will save excess tithing in good years, and spend down the reserves in bad years. To the extent they are serious about the Church never spending more than it receives, the reserves just don't need to be that big.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I wonder, though, if we are situated to competently assess what the "best practices" of the Church are or should be, particularly given its particularized mandates. 

Personally, I do have the education and experience to comment on these things. If its "particularized mandates" are something beyond what it talks about publicly and involve spending truly astronomical amounts of money in the future on things it hasn't disclosed publically, then sure--it should be saving up to do that. But based on what it claims its mandates are, it isn't planning on doing any such thing.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

The Brethren sure seem to have a firm grasp on things.

I disagree.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Elder - formerly Presiding Bishop - Causse is not in the Q12.  He has spoken many times of working to expand the Church's humanitarian efforts.  Not really the stuff we'd expect to see of a group who are "old, scared, lack vision, and are paralyzed by group think and tradition."

They are currently spending 70% of their annual income on increasing the size of their reserves, and 30% of preaching the gospel, perfecting the saints, redeeming the dead, and their now-expanding humanitarian efforts. If they came up with some audacious goal that required a $100 Billion commitment over the next 5 years and were hiring people by the thousands to make it happen, then sure--that would contradict what I said. But they aren't doing anything like that. 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I respectfully disagree with the assertion that the reserve fund “is not used to help fund the Church’s religious, educational, and humanitarian mission” and that its “sole purpose is for unspent tithing to be saved.”

It might serve the Church's religious, educational, and humanitarian mission in some sort of theoretical way because hypothetically it could dip into those funds if it needed to in support of those things. But actually doing that would contradict their fixed principle of living on less than their tithing revenue.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

wouldn't think Jesus values money in the way that the master does in that parable, but if you think He does, I won't argue with you about your religious beliefs. 

You have to have money to run an organization and give it away while keeping the organization functional and iirc you have no issue with them holding on to enough for that, so it comes down to the why of the amount of the savings.

You seem to believe there is no concrete foreseen purpose to the majority of the account, that leaders are saving money because they can for the purpose of “just in case”.  That attitude is certainly possible as many of their age (post Great Depression and WW2) lived through or had parents who lived through traumatic times and caution in finances can be a result of that environment (I saw it in one set of grandparents and both parents).

However there has been significant expansion in what the Church is doing and many of these things seem to be long term plans For example, the change from in person educational aid to online programs through Pathways and other stuff appears to me to have been in development for a couple of decades.  The shutdown of nonBYU church schools in Mexico and New Zealand and possibly other sites I can’t recall started iirc in the late 00s with NZ in 2009 and Mexico in 2013..  Pathways had a pilot program that started at the same time 2009, but only really kicked off in 2017.  BYU online high school officially started in 2020.  Since it would have taken some development time and given what I was told in the past about how they budget three years in advance for projects, my guess is Pathways was first discussed mid or even early 00s.  If so, online schooling through BYU has been in the works for 2 decades and likely still hasn’t reached the level of development originally planned.  Who knows how they picture the goal since it just keeps growing.  I would not be surprised to see centers located on each continent to allow for more native speakers getting involved in teaching.  If so, that will require massive investment.

 

Edited May 5 by Calm

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

I wouldn't think Jesus values money in the way that the master does in that parable, but if you think He does, I won't argue with you about your religious beliefs. 

I think Jesus "values money" in the way described in both Jacob 2 and Matthew 25.

I don't think the third servant's characterization of the master's motives is apt.

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

If I were interpreting the parable, I would think the servant in the parable being afraid to invest the money and instead burying it in the ground is exactly like the brethren being afraid to use the money to further their mission and instead burying it in an investment account.

It is interesting how two people can look at a situation and come away with such drastically differing interpretations.

In my view, the Brethren are not "burying" money due to indolence or fear, as the third servant did, but rather are investing the money and seeking to increase it, as first and second servants did.

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

But again, if you think Jesus' objective is gaining worldly riches like the master in the parable, you are free to interpret it that way (but if that is the case, shouldn't "getting rich" become a numbered mission of the church?)

I think reading Jacob 2 in tandem with Matthew 25 can help clarify things: "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 do good—to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted."

The Brethren are not enriching themselves (as condemned in Jacob 2).  They have created a reserve that gives the Church security and capacity to fulfill its mandates: "to do 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 appreciate that, from your perspective, the Church's posture is not legitimate, and that you vary from the Brethren as to what the Church should do with its reserves, and that the Church's philanthropic/humanitarian efforts are insufficient, and the Law of Tithing is bad, and so on.  I am inclined to give the Brethren a very big benefit of the doubt.  I think they are good and decent and forward-thinking men, and also inspired.  I think they are very cognizant of their duties.

The Church's money is strictly held in a fiduciary capacity, and the Brethren are not enriching themselves.  

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

For me, I work at an insurance company that has tens of thousands of complicated insurance contracts that generate billions in cash flows, many of which will be in force for 60 years into the future and beyond. I have the responsibility to evaluate whether or not the reserves of this company are adequate, to present my analysis to the Board of Directors, to certify the reserve adequacy in financial statements that are submitted to regulators, and to write and sign detailed reports about how I came to this conclusion. I have had arduous education, experience, and training to become qualified to do this. And I'm good enough at it to have been hired as an expert witness in billion-dollar lawsuits about these issues.

It sounds like you have ample experience of participating in a complex organization with particularized objectives and goals, centering almost entirely on fiduciary duties pertaining to money.

The Church, and the Brethren leading it, have a considerably more diversified set of objectives and goals, with financial management being a means to those ends, rather than the ends themselves.

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

I'm not trying to appeal to my own authority on this, but you should be aware that "are the reserves adequate" in the context of a large institution with a long time horizon is something I think about all day every day.

Do you think there are any material distinctions to be drawn between an insurance company and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?  If so, what are they?

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Also, is it possible that Joseph, while managing Egypt's foodstuffs during times of plenty, also encountered calls for "the reserves" to be "optimized, not maximized"?  Put another way, can your worldview accommodate the possibility that the Brethren are aware of things of which you are not, and that these things may have an substantial impact on the "optimization" versus "maximization" thing you reference above?

All I can do is base my analysis on what they've said.

You've done quite a bit of speculating and surmising and guessing when doing so facilitates the casting of aspersions on the Church.  I'm just wondering if you can accommodate speculations and surmisings that might go the other way.

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

Bednar said:

In that first council meeting I was impressed by the simplicity of the principles that guided our deliberations and decisions. In the financial operations of the Church, two basic and fixed principles are observed. First, the Church lives within its means and does not spend more than it receives. Second, a portion of the annual income is set aside as a reserve for contingencies and unanticipated needs. For decades the Church has taught its membership the principle of setting aside additional food, fuel, and money to take care of emergencies that might arise. The Church as an institution simply follows the same principles that are taught repeatedly to the members.

You are denigrating these "two basic and fixed principles." I am not sure why, as they seem to have worked remarkably well as far as stabilizing the Church's financial condition.

You also are apparently unwilling to account for differences between accounting for the financial condition of, say, a married couple in their 50s with the financial condition of a worldwide religious organization with millions of members and many billions of dollars of property and income and reserves and business interests and investments and so on.  Both of these stand to benefit from the "two basic and fixed principles" noted above, but the eventual and long-term objectives of the Church are going to yield some different results as compared to the married couple whose financial stewardship ends, effectively, with themselves and their lifespans.

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

My view is based on these meeting working exactly as Bednar described, with additional information such as what Nielsen said, what Church's Financial Standard #6230 says, and the fact that we now know how big the funds are. 

Individuals saving the way the Church saves actually makes sense. That is because as individuals, we have far more risk than the Church. If I lose my job, I lose 100% of my income. In contrast, if there is a major recession and unemployment shoots up to, say, 20%, then the Church's tithing revenue might go down 10% to 20%. That difference means individuals are at much greater risk than the Church, and therefore should be saving more. And unlike the Church, individuals in all likelihood will become disabled or otherwise forced out of the workforce and will need to survive on their savings. The Church doesn't face that risk. In the year 2046, I'll need my savings to survive. In contrast, in 2046 the Church will have that year's tithing revenue to survive.

Yes.  And in your view, this is a bad thing.  In my view, it is a good and intended thing.

It's all about the presuppositions, I guess.

 

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

I wonder, though, if we are situated to competently assess what the "best practices" of the Church are or should be, particularly given its particularized mandates. 

Personally, I do have the education and experience to comment on these things.

Do you think you harbor any animus against the Church?  

Do you think your assessment of the Church is purely clinical and empirical, with no influence from your personal feelings about the institution?

Habit One of the "Peacemakers" book:

Quote

Habit One:
Intellectual Humility and Reframing

Core Idea: Most of us know far less than we think we do (Dunning-Kruger effect). Recognizing our ignorance is the foundation of peacemaking. We must reframe conversations from “winning” to “solving a shared problem.”

Main Points:

• “A little learning is a dang’rous thing” (Alexander Pope). Acting on partial knowledge causes harm.

• The Black Death example: 14th-century scholars blamed the plague on planetary alignment and earthquakes instead of bacteria.

• The Dunning-Kruger effect and “beginner’s bubble” of overconfidence.

• Reframing technique: Explicitly acknowledge how little we (and everyone) knows, then frame the conversation as a joint problem-solving exercise.

• Even experts should use their knowledge to frame problems helpfully rather than to dominate.

Practical Takeaways:

• Before any hard conversation, remind yourself: “I know only a fraction of what there is to know on this topic.”

• Reframe: “This seems complex. What data/sources are we using? What cause are we trying to solve?”

If you are the expert, use your knowledge to lay out the best arguments on both sides, not to bulldoze.

I have found this to be valuable for me and my assessment of legal issues affecting the Church.  As much experience as I have in the law, I still think the Dunning-Kruger Effect has some real application.

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

If its "particularized mandates" are something beyond what it talks about publicly and involve spending truly astronomical amounts of money in the future on things it hasn't disclosed publically, then sure--it should be saving up to do that. But based on what it claims its mandates are, it isn't planning on doing any such thing.

Regarding the finances of the Church: “I know only a fraction of what there is to know on this topic.”

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

The Brethren sure seem to have a firm grasp on things.

I disagree.

I acknowledge your perspective, but I do not share it.

The Brethren are not perfect, but they are doing an excellent job overall.  I think this is attributable both to their native intellects and talents, and also to the Lord's guidance.  YMMV.

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

They are currently spending 70% of their annual income on increasing the size of their reserves, and 30% of preaching the gospel, perfecting the saints, redeeming the dead, and their now-expanding humanitarian efforts.

These conclusory statements seem to obscure, rather than clarify, both your point and your underlying presuppositions.

You have said this several times, and you seem to treat it as some sort of self-evident indictment.  I view it in quite a different way:

"Wow!  The Church spend most of its first 130+ years in cycles of financial disarray, but then along came N. Eldon Tanner in the 60s, and he and the other leaders of the Church have spent the last 60+ years stabilizing and strengthening the financial condition of the Church.  They went from being nearly unable to meet payroll in 1963 to having enough excess funds to create Ensign Peak Advisors in 1997. 

And in the 29 years since, both through the faithful tithes of its members and the wise and prudent stewardship of its leaders, the Church has accumulated an astounding amount of financial reserves.  And though some errors have been made (such as the SEC matter), on the whole the Church has had so much success in managing its finances that one of its most ardent critics, D. Michael Quinn, declared: 'It is an American success story without parallel ... No institution, no church, no business, no nonprofit organization in America has had this kind of history.' 

And other critics, casting around for ways to find fault, can only complain that the Church is not spending enough of its money fast enough to suit their subjective preferences and expectations. 

The Brethren are not getting rich.  They are not living profligately.  Many of them sacrifice their peak earning years to serve in difficult, and often thankless, positions throughout the world.  They do so not to get rich or earn praise, but because they believe the Church is what it claims to be, and so consecrate their efforts. 

So too do the individual Latter-day Saints, many of whom only have a "mite" to give, but collectively have given the Church the financial means to do what it is doing today.  The Church has money to build houses of worship, conduct family history and missionary and temple work, maintaining educational institutions, building and strengthening families and communities, providing extensive humanitarian and philanthropic assistance, and so on.

The Church's finances are at the peak of their strength at a point in time when many other religious groups and institutions are faltering.  All because of the combined faithfulness and efforts of the Latter-day Saints and their leaders.

The Church faces some real difficulty in responsibly distributing more of its wealth (as Bishop Causse and others have emphasized is the intent of the Church).  Recent news items have made clear the corruptions that permeate so much of the infrastructure for national and international humanitarian aid.  I am very grateful that the Church is cautious and circumspect in vetting its partners in these endeavors.  While this apparently creates something of a bottleneck, and while the Church can no doubt improve in how it approaches these matters, overall it is doing well in both plan and execution.

Again, wow!  I am grateful to be a part of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  First and foremost, I believe it is what it claims to be.  Second, I believe its leaders are working hard to be in communion with the Lord's will.  Third, the net effect of the Church is to improve the lives of those who accept its message, and to improve the lives of its neighbors everywhere.  It is a wonderful institution!"

YMMV.

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

If they came up with some audacious goal that required a $100 Billion commitment over the next 5 years and were hiring people by the thousands to make it happen, then sure--that would contradict what I said. But they aren't doing anything like that.

I think there are presuppositions at work here.  My generalized perspective is that the Church - along with other high-net-worth groups and individuals - have more money to donate than reputable and effective and efficient conduits for that money to be utilized to benefit the family of man.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 5 by smac97

[Kenngo1969]

For what it's worth, I queried our friend (and the font of all knowledge! ), Google Gemini, as follows:

Quote

Although this may not be an "official" teaching of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in essence, we're commanded to be "in the world but not of the world." Essentially, we are to do what we can to maintain a Celestial perspective and focus in a Telestial, fallen world. This includes using the tools and the resources that we have to do good, even if others may put those tools and those resources to other, less beneficial uses. At one point, I believe Joseph Smith was commanded to "make friends of the mammon of the world" [I may not have the phrasing exactly right, but that's the gist] so that relationships and resources thereby could be used to benefit the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. How accurate is my understanding? Am I missing any nuances?

Here is how Gemini responded:

Quote

 

Your understanding captures a significant theme in Latter-day Saint theology regarding the tension between spiritual ideals and the practicalities of mortal life. You are referencing a concept that spans both the New Testament and modern revelation, specifically dealing with how to navigate a "fallen" world while preparing for a higher one.

Here are a few nuances and historical contexts that add depth to your perspective:

1. The Scriptural Basis: "Make Friends of the Mammon"

You are likely thinking of Doctrine and Covenants 82:22, where the Lord states:

"And provide for yourselves a place in Zion, and a property in benefit of the church, and for the advancement of the cause, which you have accepted, to save the souls of men, and for the service of the saints... make unto yourselves friends with the mammon of unrighteousness, and they shall not destroy you."

This revelation was given in 1832 to the leaders of the United Firm. The nuance here is stewardship. The "mammon" (wealth or worldly systems) is not seen as inherently evil, but as a tool. The instruction suggests that by managing worldly resources wisely and establishing legal and social standing within the world’s existing frameworks, the Church could protect itself from being destroyed by those same systems.

2. The Celestial vs. Telestial Dialectic

Your point about maintaining a Celestial perspective in a Telestial world aligns with the Church’s teachings on the Plan of Salvation. In this context:

• The Telestial World: This represents the current state of mortality, characterized by physical laws, opposition, and the absence of God's direct presence.
• The Celestial Goal: This is the standard of Zion. The "nuance" often taught by Church leaders is that we cannot simply withdraw from the world (asceticism). Instead, the goal is to sanctify the world. Using a computer, a legal system, or a financial market—tools often used for "mammon"—to share the gospel or care for the poor is seen as an act of "redeeming" those resources.

3. "In the World, Not of the World"

While this phrase is a common Christian aphorism (derived from John 17), Latter-day Saint leaders have often added the nuance of engagement. Elder M. Russell Ballard and others have taught that being "not of the world" doesn't mean being "not in the world."

• Isolation vs. Insulation: The goal is to be insulated by covenants rather than isolated by geography.
• Salt of the Earth: To be the "salt," one must actually be mixed into the food. If the "tools and resources" are abandoned to only those with "less beneficial uses," the Church loses its ability to influence the world for good.

4. Pragmatism and Ethics

One important nuance Joseph Smith emphasized was that "Zion" must be built on a foundation of legal and temporal order. This is why the early Church sought land titles, incorporated businesses, and engaged in politics. The "friendship with mammon" was a recognition that to survive in a 19th-century republic (or a 21st-century global economy), one must understand and use the rules of that system to create a space where spiritual work can flourish.

Summary of Nuance

You aren't missing the core "gist" at all. If anything, the missing piece is the Doctrine of Consecration. The reason one "makes friends with mammon" is not for personal gain, but to transform that mammon into something consecrated for the "benefit of the Church" and the "saving of the souls of men." It is the intent behind the use of the tool that determines whether the user is being "of the world" or merely "in" it.

 

P.S.:  Pragmatism and ethics?!    Hmmm!  I wonder what our friend, @Mfbnew would have to say about that?!

Edited May 5 by Kenngo1969

[Analytics]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think Jesus "values money" in the way described in both Jacob 2 and Matthew 25.

I'd just point out that Jacob 2 says "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 do 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 don't recall anywhere that it says your riches should be saved for a rainy day.

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

It sounds like you have ample experience of participating in a complex organization with particularized objectives and goals, centering almost entirely on fiduciary duties pertaining to money.

“Fiduciary” may not be the right word for what I do. Insurance companies issue contracts, and they have legal, regulatory, and ethical obligations to honor those contracts, deal fairly with policyholders, and maintain enough financial resources to meet future claims. There is a highly developed regulatory framework around how companies do that, and the Appointed Actuary’s role is to formally opine on reserve adequacy. But I'm not a fiduciary in any of my current roles.

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

Do you think there are any material distinctions to be drawn between an insurance company and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?  If so, what are they?

I'm not going to write an essay about the differences between an insurance company and a church. Sorry. I'll just say that I have a very deep and broad education about finance and corporate management, and that is what I'm relying on in my comments.

As I see it, the most fundamental part our disagreement is that for religious reasons, you think everything the church does is good and wise by definition, and have set out to rationalize everything they do. That's why you are quoting Michael Quinn on this topic--it isn't because his analysis on it is sharp (it's not), and it isn't because you think he's a brilliant authority on how to judge the nuances of the Church (you don't). Rather, you like what he says on this topic. That's it.

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

Do you think you harbor any animus against the Church?  

Do you think your assessment of the Church is purely clinical and empirical, with no influence from your personal feelings about the institution?

No, I don't think I harbor much animus against the church, and yes, I think my assessment on these issues is in fact purely clinical and empirical. But recognizing that I may be biased, I had the following conversation with ChatGPT. The conversation below is completely unedited and unabridged--I didn't omit any prompts or redo any prompts mining for it to say what I want to hear. All highlights are from GPT.

Q: Let's have a conversation in a question and answer format. The entire conversation will be published on the Internet in a discussion forum. I'll ask questions one by one, and you'll answer them from the perspective of an expert on the best practices in non-profit finance, leadership, corporate structure, boardroom dynamics, and management. Your position is that which is best supported by research and taught in the nation's best business schools. Keep your answers brief and conversational, usually just a short sentence or two, but longer if necessary in order to make the point. Any meta-questions before we begin?

A: No meta-questions. That format works.

I’ll answer as a neutral expert in nonprofit finance, governance, leadership, corporate structure, and management best practices—not as an advocate for any particular institution. I’ll keep answers brief, practical, and grounded in mainstream governance and business-school principles.

Q: For churches and non-profits in the U.S., is transparency with donors, potential donors, and the public at large a well-defined concept?

A: Yes, but with an important caveat.

For most nonprofits, transparency has a fairly well-developed meaning: clear financial reporting, truthful fundraising, public access to required filings, disclosure of conflicts, and enough information for donors to understand how resources are obtained, governed, and used. The IRS requires many exempt organizations to file and disclose Form 990, but churches are generally exempt from that annual filing requirement. (IRS)

So legally, churches often have a lower disclosure floor. But as a governance best practice, transparency is still a central expectation because public trust is essential to nonprofit legitimacy. Independent Sector’s governance principles expressly treat legal compliance, public disclosure, financial oversight, and responsible fundraising as core nonprofit practices. (independentsector.org)

Q: Should churches and non-profits have reserves?

A: Yes. A well-run church or nonprofit should have reserves.

Reserves protect the mission from ordinary volatility: delayed revenue, economic downturns, lawsuits, emergencies, donor shortfalls, or major capital needs. The best-practice question is not whether to have reserves, but how much, for what purpose, under whose authority, and with what plan for use and replenishment. A common nonprofit rule of thumb is several months of operating expenses, but there is no universal number. (councilofnonprofits.org)

Q: Would it be considered best practices run a church or non-profit off of 90% of donations and save the balance in a perpetually growing reserve fund?

A: Generally, no.

Saving 10% each year can be prudent if it is tied to a defined reserve target, capital plan, endowment policy, or future mission need. But a policy of automatically diverting 10% into a perpetually growing reserve fund with no clear target or spending discipline would usually be seen as weak governance: it risks converting current donor support into institutional wealth accumulation rather than mission delivery.

Best practice is a reserve policy with a purpose, target range, board oversight, disclosure, and rules for use and replenishment—not endless accumulation by default. (councilofnonprofits.org)

Q: Imagine a Church or non-profit that lived off of 85% to 90% of donations every year from 1960 to the present day, and grew a reserve fund that was now about 30 times its annual expenses. Should this be considered success?

A: Not by itself.

It would be a financial accumulation success, but not necessarily a mission success. For a church or nonprofit, the relevant question is not “Did the reserve grow?” but “Was the organization responsibly advancing its mission with the resources donors entrusted to it?”

A reserve equal to 30 times annual expenses is far beyond a normal operating reserve. It would need an unusually compelling explanation: a clearly disclosed endowment strategy, specific long-term obligations, restricted funds, catastrophic-risk planning, or a major future mission purpose. Without that, most nonprofit finance and governance experts would see it as evidence of under-deployment of charitable resources, not exemplary stewardship.

Q: Imagine a Church or non-profit in this financial position of having a reserve fund 30 times its annual expenses, and when including investment income, used 70% of its annual income to grow the the size of the reserve, and the remaining 30% for its mission. What word objectively describes its use of resources?

A: The most neutral word is accumulation.

The more evaluative governance word would be under-deployment.

And if the reserve is unrestricted, perpetually growing, poorly disclosed, and not tied to a credible future mission need, the plain-English description “hoarding” would not be unfair. It means the organization is retaining resources far beyond normal prudence instead of deploying them for the charitable or religious mission donors are funding.

Q: Let's talk about corporate governance. Let's say this hypothetical church or non-profit had the following board structure. Should the leaders of the organization that make decisions about how the Church or non-profit spend donations be allowed to know the size of the reserve fund, or is it better for them to make decisions that are based just on knowing what the donations are?

A: They should absolutely be allowed to know it.

In fact, the board or governing leaders responsible for spending decisions need to know the full financial position: donations, expenses, liabilities, restricted funds, reserves, investments, risks, and long-term obligations. Otherwise they cannot exercise informed fiduciary oversight. Nonprofit governance norms emphasize active, informed oversight and strong financial accountability. (independentsector.org)

Making leaders allocate current donations while concealing a massive reserve from them is not better governance. It creates distorted decisions, weak accountability, and a serious risk that leaders will over-constrain mission spending because they are operating with incomplete information.

Q: If an organization is committed to keeping its annual expenses less than its annual donations, does that have any implications for how large its reserves should be?

A: Yes.

If annual expenses are structurally kept below annual donations, the organization is already building in a recurring surplus. That generally reduces the need for an enormous reserve, because the organization is not relying on reserves to cover normal operations.

It also means that without a defined reserve target, the reserve will grow automatically forever. That is not a reserve policy; it is an accumulation policy. A proper reserve level should be based on risk, volatility, obligations, and future plans—not simply on a rule that spending must always stay below donations.

Q: If a Church or non-profit did everything I've alluded to in these questions, should this be considered a success?

A: Only in a narrow accounting sense.

It would show strong financial control, discipline, and asset accumulation. But in nonprofit governance, that is not the same as success.

For a church or nonprofit, success means advancing the mission responsibly, honestly, and effectively with resources entrusted by donors. If the organization:

kept expenses artificially below donations, accumulated reserves far beyond plausible needs, used most annual income to grow the fund, concealed the full reserve from decision-makers or donors, and lacked a clear mission-based deployment plan,

then most governance experts would not call that exemplary stewardship. They would call it over-accumulation, under-deployment of charitable resources, and potentially a failure of transparency and fiduciary governance.

A nonprofit’s job is not to maximize net worth. Its job is to maximize mission impact while remaining financially prudent.

Q: Would your views on this change if you found out that the leaders of the organization were not using the resources to enrich themselves?

A: No, not much.

Self-enrichment would make the situation much worse—possibly a corruption or private-benefit problem. But the absence of self-enrichment does not automatically make the conduct good governance.

A nonprofit can be honestly led and still be poorly governed. The core issue would remain: were donor resources transparently, prudently, and effectively deployed for the mission? If vast resources were accumulated without clear purpose, disclosure, or informed oversight, that is still a serious governance concern even if nobody got personally rich.

Q: Now imagine the following board structure. There are 18 board seats. 3 of the seats are the investment managers, who generally forced to retire when they are 65 or 70. The other 15 seats are for life, and the average member of the board is in his 80's. When a new member is chosen for the board, they are explained how the system works: Only the 3 investment managers plus three other senior board members are allowed to know the organization's assets. They operate on the strict principle that they will allocate budgets to keep each year's expenses less than that year's donations, and save the balance in the reserve fund. This principle is strictly followed.

Would this be considered best practices for a board structure? What about as a way of allocating resources?

A: No. That would not be considered best-practice board governance.

A board can delegate investment management to a committee, but it should not create a two-tier board where most fiduciaries are intentionally denied knowledge of the organization’s material assets. BoardSource describes nonprofit boards as ultimately responsible for oversight, accountability, stewardship of entrusted resources, and legal/ethical compliance; that requires access to full, material financial information. (BoardSource)

The resource-allocation rule is also poor practice. “Spend less than donations every year and save the rest” is not a mission-based capital policy; it is a mechanical accumulation policy. Best practice is to set reserves based on risk, obligations, liquidity needs, strategic plans, and mission opportunities—not simply to grow the fund forever. (National Council of Nonprofits)

The life-tenured, elderly, insider-informed structure adds another problem: weak renewal and weak challenge. Good boards need informed oversight, independence of judgment, succession planning, and enough transparency inside the boardroom for real debate. This structure would tend to suppress all of that.

Q: If an organization had this structure and in practice used 70% of its total assets (donations plus investment income) to grow the size of the reserves, would it be fair to say that accumulating assets is its highest objectives?

A: Yes—with one wording adjustment.

If the organization uses 70% of annual inflows—donations plus investment income—to increase reserves, then it is fair to say that asset accumulation is functionally its dominant financial priority.

Whether it is formally the “highest objective” depends on stated mission and intent. But behavior matters. If most available resources are consistently retained rather than deployed, and the governance system is designed to preserve that pattern, then accumulation is not incidental. It has become the operating model.

Q: How should the Parable of the Talents best be applied to this situation?

A: The Parable of the Talents should not be read as a blanket endorsement of accumulating institutional wealth.

Its core lesson is accountable stewardship of entrusted resources. The faithful servants put the master’s resources to productive use; the condemned servant preserves the asset but fails to deploy it. Applied to a church or nonprofit, the natural lesson is not “maximize reserves,” but “use entrusted resources courageously and responsibly to advance the mission.”

So if an organization buries most of its resources in an ever-growing reserve while under-deploying them for mission, the parable cuts against that behavior more than it supports it. The “safe” servant is the one rebuked.

Q: Imagine somebody who is a Fellowship of the Society of Actuaries and passed all of the actuarial exams in the Corporate Finance track. Would you expect such a person to share your sensibilities on this topic?

A: Yes, generally.

An FSA with a corporate finance background would be trained to think in terms of risk, capital adequacy, surplus targets, asset-liability management, governance, and opportunity cost. That person would normally understand that reserves are not good merely because they are large; they are good only if they are right-sized to risks and obligations.

So I would expect such a person to be skeptical of a perpetually growing reserve equal to many decades of expenses, especially if most board members lack full information and if the accumulation is not tied to a clearly articulated capital policy or mission plan. They might use more technical language than “hoarding,” but the underlying concern would be very familiar.

Q: What if one of the board members on the top tier who knew the details of the organization’s resources assured us that the only reason the reserve existed was to further the mission of the organization. Would that change your views?

A: It would matter, but it would not resolve the concern.

A board member’s assurance is relevant evidence of intent, and it is better than saying the reserve exists for prestige, control, or institutional self-protection. But good governance does not rest on assurances alone. It requires a credible policy architecture: defined reserve purposes, target levels, spending rules, oversight, disclosure, and periodic reassessment.

The key question would be: How, when, and under what decision rules will these resources be used to further the mission?

If the answer is vague—“someday,” “as needed,” or “the leaders know best”—then the assurance does not change much. A mission-purpose claim has to be operationalized. Otherwise every oversized reserve can be justified rhetorically as “for the mission” while functioning in practice as permanent accumulation.

Q: What if you believed the members of the board were all smart, good, and well-intentioned?

A: That would affect the tone of the criticism, but not the governance conclusion.

Smart, good, well-intentioned people can still build bad systems. In fact, governance best practices exist precisely because even capable people are vulnerable to groupthink, institutional inertia, deference to seniority, secrecy norms, and distorted incentives.

So I would not assume corruption. But I would still say the structure is unsound: too little transparency, too little informed board oversight, and too much reliance on trust rather than disciplined governance.

Q: Say two people were discussing these issues and interpreted the situation completely oppositely—one thought the high reserves indicated success, and the other thought high reserves indicate failure. Which of the two would you think was better educated in the relevant MBA topics?

A: The second person is much closer to the mainstream MBA/governance view.

High reserves are not automatically failure, but treating them as success by themselves is financially simplistic. In nonprofit management, the educated view is that reserves are a tool, not the mission. You ask whether the capital level is justified by risks, obligations, strategic plans, donor expectations, and mission opportunities.

So the better-trained answer would be: “Large reserves may indicate discipline, but reserves 30 times annual expenses, growing mechanically, with limited transparency and weak board information flow, are more likely evidence of under-deployment and poor governance than success."

Edited May 5 by Analytics

[Analytics]

Q: Bonus question. Can you name *two* specific charities or churches that have the issues I've been alluding to in these questions?

A: Yes. The obvious one is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, through Ensign Peak Advisors.

That example fits several of the issues you’ve been describing: very large accumulated reserves, limited internal/external transparency, shell-entity disclosure problems, and an official rationale that the funds exist to support the Church’s mission. The SEC found that Ensign Peak’s structure obscured the Church’s investment portfolio, which had reached about $32 billion in reportable securities by 2018, and the Church and Ensign Peak paid a combined $5 million settlement. (SEC)

A second example often discussed in the same broad category is the Church of Scientology—not necessarily for the exact same reserve-ratio mechanics, but for recurring concerns about wealth accumulation, complex church/corporate structure, tax-exempt status, governance opacity, and whether resources are primarily serving religious/charitable purposes. Its tax-exempt status and organizational structure have been the subject of unusually long-running IRS, litigation, and scholarly scrutiny. (texastechlawreview.org)

So: LDS/Ensign Peak is the cleanest match. Scientology is a plausible second example, though the factual pattern is not identical.

[cujo22]

AI has really sped up the time I spend keeping up with these conversations. For some reason the AI doesn't interest me, so I can skip past those long portions of AI. Hopefully I'm not missing much.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, cujo22 said:

AI has really sped up the time I spend keeping up with these conversations. For some reason the AI doesn't interest me, so I can skip past those long portions of AI. Hopefully I'm not missing much.

Same

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, cujo22 said:

AI has really sped up the time I spend keeping up with these conversations. For some reason the AI doesn't interest me, so I can skip past those long portions of AI. Hopefully I'm not missing much.

I certainly wouldn't begrudge you for not being interested in reading the AI content, but if you are interested in my thought process, feel free to read the prompts I wrote.

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

I'd just point out that Jacob 2 says "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 do 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 don't recall anywhere that it says your riches should be saved for a rainy day.

There is also no provision in Jacob 2 or Matthew 25 that specifies the timeframe in which money must be spent, nor any prohibition against developing long-term strategies to facilitate the fulfillment of the Church's mandates.  

Again, I wonder if Joseph in Egypt had his detractors, disparaging him for requiring large-scale "hoarding" of food during a time of plenty.

Or Noah, who was mocked for his preparation efforts that, at the time, seemed nonsensical to those who did not know what he knew, or else refused to accept/believe what he was saying.

Lehi left Jerusalem, and all his wealth and possessions.  Laman and Lemuel likely gave him some real grief over that.

If the Brethren were living profligately, if they were enriching themselves, I think your critique of them would have more potency.  As it is, though, they are being both excellent stewards of the Church's funds and are not enriching themselves.  To the contrary, many GAs make a substantial financial sacrifice when accepting the calling.  

We are left, then, with what I think is an argument that, as Kathleen Flake put it, is not about financial malfeasance or nonfeasance, but rather is a power struggle “about competing views of what should be done with Church money and who gets to say so.”

Again, where are we ending up?  Has all this just been a combination of (A) the Church has been exonerated regarding the allegations of fraud in the tithing lawsuits, and (B) the arguments about EPA are an a protracted and ongoing "woulda coulda shoulda" sort of thing, where reasonable minds can disagree about what the Church should do with its money?

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

It sounds like you have ample experience of participating in a complex organization with particularized objectives and goals, centering almost entirely on fiduciary duties pertaining to money.

“Fiduciary” may not be the right word for what I do. Insurance companies issue contracts, and they have legal, regulatory, and ethical obligations to honor those contracts, deal fairly with policyholders, and maintain enough financial resources to meet future claims. There is a highly developed regulatory framework around how companies do that, and the Appointed Actuary’s role is to formally opine on reserve adequacy. But I'm not a fiduciary in any of my current roles.

That ends up, in my view, as a very important distinction.  Insurance companies have latent - and sometimes patent - incentives to not honor "ethical obligations to honor those {insurance} contracts."  Ask any attorney.  Recognizing this, secular governments must impose "a highly developed regulatory framework" to compel insurance companies, when necessary and appropriate, to do what they are supposed to do.

Insurance companies, then, generally do not owe a traditional "fiduciary duty" to their insureds in the same way, say, a trustee does, but they are obligated to act in good faith and with fair dealing. While some jurisdictions and circumstances, such as liability defense, can create fiduciary-like duties, courts often view the insurer-insured relationship as contractual rather than fiduciary.

This is very must in contrast with the Church and its leaders, who do function in roles that are very "fiduciary" in character.  

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Do you think there are any material distinctions to be drawn between an insurance company and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?  If so, what are they?

I'm not going to write an essay about the differences between an insurance company and a church. Sorry.

I wasn't expecting an essay.  You brought up the comparison, so I was asking you to clarify it.  No biggie.

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

I'll just say that I have a very deep and broad education about finance and corporate management, and that is what I'm relying on in my comments.

Understood and appreciated.  I think we all have far less information about the inner workings of the Church, particularly how the First Presidency and the Presiding Bishopric are being guided to manage the Church's finances.  Again, the Dunning-Kruger Effect has some real application here.

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

As I see it, the most fundamental part our disagreement is that for religious reasons, you think everything the church does is good and wise by definition, and have set out to rationalize everything they do.

Well no.  My "reasons" are in part predicated on faith ("religious reasons"), but also on observation.  Like you, I have some substantial secular training and experience that can be brought to bear when analyzing the Church's actions.  My observations, based in large part on those skill sets, have led me to conclude that the Brethren are, cumulatively and broadly, doing a really good job fulfilling some very difficult obligations.  These men (and, increasingly, the women who are General Officers) are overwhelmingly good and decent, and their motives reflect in their actions and decisions made on behalf of the Church.  These folks are also cumulatively well-trained, well-experienced, and quite smart.  These folks are also not "in it" for the money, or notoriety.  They are "in it" because they believe the Church is what it claims to be, and they want it to succeed.  Not for money or pride, but because it is the nascent and inchoate Kingdom of God on the earth. 

That is not to say that they are perfect, or that every decision they make is pristine and without flaw.  But broadly and overwhelmingly, the Church is a wonderful institution, its leaders are good and smart and effective, and their efforts on behalf of the Church are both well-intentioned and, in the main, effective and prudent.

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

That's why you are quoting Michael Quinn on this topic--it isn't because his analysis on it is sharp (it's not), and it isn't because you think he's a brilliant authority on how to judge the nuances of the Church (you don't). Rather, you like what he says on this topic. That's it.

I quote Quinn because what he is saying is explanatory and clarifying.  The Church's finances are in excellent shape.

If the Brethren were living profligately, or if they were being wasteful in administering the Widow's Mite, I would not defend such things.  But they aren't, so I'm not.

As a Latter-day Saint, it can be difficult to defend the Church and its institutional character and decency when discussing, say, the Priesthood Ban or Mountain Meadows.  But when objectively evaluating the quality of the Church's management of its finances, my job is a relative walk in the park.

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Do you think you harbor any animus against the Church?  

Do you think your assessment of the Church is purely clinical and empirical, with no influence from your personal feelings about the institution?

No, I don't think I harbor much animus against the church, and yes, I think my assessment on these issues is in fact purely clinical and empirical.

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 5 by smac97

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, cujo22 said:

AI has really sped up the time I spend keeping up with these conversations. For some reason the AI doesn't interest me, so I can skip past those long portions of AI. Hopefully I'm not missing much.

@cujo22 Your mileage varies, obviously, and that's fine.  (Hell, people probably ignore me even when my contributions don't include AI, so I'll just add you to the [long] list! )  For my part [and for the most part] I find that when it comes to AI, "GIGO" ["Garbage In, Garbage Out"] applies.  The better and more detailed the question, in general, the better the answer.  Caveat lector.  To each, one's own.  To each, one's own.

Edited May 5 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

... A reserve equal to 30 times annual expenses is far beyond a normal operating reserve. It would need an unusually compelling explanation: a clearly disclosed endowment strategy, specific long-term obligations, restricted funds, catastrophic-risk planning, or a major future mission purpose. Without that, most nonprofit finance and governance experts would see it as evidence of under-deployment of charitable resources, not exemplary stewardship.

 

Indeed, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has "specific long-term obligations ... catastrophic risk planning, [and] a major future mission purpose."  While, from a certain perspective, I can understand why someone might wonder what the h-e-double-hockey-sticks the Church is doing, those with an eye of faith, perhaps, can see that a bit more clearly.

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

There is also no provision in Jacob 2 or Matthew 25 that specifies the timeframe in which money must be spent, nor any prohibition against developing long-term strategies to facilitate the fulfillment of the Church's mandates.  

Again, I wonder if Joseph in Egypt had his detractors, disparaging him for requiring large-scale "hoarding" of food during a time of plenty.

Or Noah, who was mocked for his preparation efforts that, at the time, seemed nonsensical to those who did not know what he knew, or else refused to accept/believe what he was saying.

This sounds reasonable in abstract, but when you look at it more closely, not only is it inconsistent with the Church's stated reasons for why the over-accumulation came into being in the first place (it exists as an economic inevitability of perpetually following the fixed principle of living on less than income, not because they are saving for anything in particular), it doesn't even make Economic sense--you can't eat shares of Nvidia, Bank of America, Meta, or United Health.

What would you think of the Church revoking the law of tithing? The Church has the financial resources to do that very easily now, and the 200th anniversary would be a great day to drop that revelation. If that (or something that grand) is the top-secret plan, then what they are doing makes sense. Otherwise, it doesn't.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

If the Brethren were living profligately, if they were enriching themselves, I think your critique of them would have more potency.

If you think that, you haven't been paying attention to what I've been saying.

Quote

 

Q: Would your views on this change if you found out that the leaders of the organization were not using the resources to enrich themselves?

A: No, not much.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

As it is, though, they are being both excellent stewards of the Church's funds and are not enriching themselves.  To the contrary, many GAs make a substantial financial sacrifice when accepting the calling.  

We are left, then, with what I think is an argument that, as Kathleen Flake put it, is not about financial malfeasance or nonfeasance, but rather is a power struggle “about competing views of what should be done with Church money and who gets to say so.”

If they were being excellent stewards, they wouldn't be over-accumulating assets. In any case, I'm not talking about what they should do with their assets, other than pointing out that by any reasonable standard, they are over-accumulating. I'm also talking about how the Church goes about making decisions on how it deploys resources. You are talking about whether the leaders of the Church are good men. These are two different things. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Again, where are we ending up?  Has all this just been a combination of (A) the Church has been exonerated regarding the allegations of fraud in the tithing lawsuits, and (B) the arguments about EPA are an a protracted and ongoing "woulda coulda shoulda" sort of thing, where reasonable minds can disagree about what the Church should do with its money?

From my perspective, the Church has not been exonerated in the tithing lawsuits--even though it has been cleared of committing fraud in the legal sense, it has in fact fallen far short of being adequately transparent with the people from whom it seeks donations. And while reasonable minds can disagree on what the Church does with its money in an abstract way, I don't think any reasonable and informed minds could argue that other churches or charities should follow the Church's example on the issues we've been talking about--nobody is going to argue that the United Way should discontinue being transparent, should perpetually operate on 90% of its donations and invest the balance in a rainy day fund, and should effectively turn into a wealth-accumulation machine that hides these details from its own board.  

That's true even if the members of the United Way's board were all good, honorable, smart men. That's true even if they weren't getting rich off of it.

The best argument you have is special pleading. But it is clear to me that its decisions are driven by its decision-making processes, which are driven by groupthink, deference to authority, loyalty pressure, information asymmetry, insider control, institutional self-preservation, status-quo bias, moral licensing, and diffusion of responsibility. That is why the governance issues I keep bringing up matter.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I quote Quinn because what he is saying is explanatory and clarifying.  The Church's finances are in excellent shape.

Quinn thinking they are in excellent shape proves he doesn't know what he's talking about--the finances are in terrible shape because the Church saves as if the accumulation of assets is its everlasting purpose and goal. If that is the objective then sure, it's in great shape. If that isn't the objective, then it is failing financially.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think we all have far less information about the inner workings of the Church, particularly how the First Presidency and the Presiding Bishopric are being guided to manage the Church's finances.

But we do have clues. The clues include their statements about how things work. They include their explanations for what's happening. They include documents that have been leaked. They include its lack of transparency in and of itself. They include the size of its "rainy day fund". These things all paint a consistent picture. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

That is not to say that they are perfect, or that every decision they make is pristine and without flaw.  But broadly and overwhelmingly, the Church is a wonderful institution, its leaders are good and smart and effective, and their efforts on behalf of the Church are both well-intentioned and, in the main, effective and prudent.

I agree with you that the leaders are good, smart, and well-intentioned. But the institution itself is dominated by culture, structure, and processes that prevent them from making the bold decisions that are needed and result in their resources primarily being dedicated to over-accumulation of more and more resources as if that were an end until itself. If that is their mission they are succeeding. If that isn't their mission they are failing. I'm not blaming them as individuals. I'm blaming the institution itself.

Edited May 5 by Analytics

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

A reserve equal to 30 times annual expenses is far beyond a normal operating reserve.

"Beyond a normal operating reserve" compared to what?

In any event, I'm quite okay with the Church doing some things that are out of the ordinary.  For example, we spend large amounts of money building temples in which proxy ordinances are performed.  This not "normal" as compared to for-profit businesses, or even many other religious groups.  

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

It would need an unusually compelling explanation: a clearly disclosed endowment strategy,

"Clearly disclosed" to whom?  What is the legal/ethical basis for this disclosure requirement?  

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

specific long-term obligations,

The Church has all sorts of "long-term obligations."  Millions of members.  Tens of thousands of congregations.  Tens of thousands of missionaries.  Thousands of church buildings.  Hundreds of temples.  Many many of business interests, including farms, commercial properties, etc.,  Educational efforts.  Humanitarian efforts.  Deseret Industries.  Welfare Square.  Regular meetings and lessons.  And on and on.

The Church's center of gravity seems to be moving away from the relatively affluent North America to a more diversified - and substantially less financially secure - international space.  And the Church intends to operate in perpetuity, at least until the Second Coming.  And we don't really know when that will be.  Could be years, could be decades or more.  

Lots and lots of long-term obligations here, all of which will require maintenance and financial support after everyone reading this is dead and buried.

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

restricted funds,

I think the Church faces quite a bit of de facto restrictions on how it uses its money.  

I have previously written at some length about how the Church having huge financial reserves is a fairly recent phenomenon (just in the last few decades), and also that distribution/funding of humanitarian and philanthropic and religious efforts on the scale at which the Church is operating (internationally, with huge amounts of money potentially in play, with dozens/hundreds of "partners" and governments and such with whom the Church must cooperate) requires huge measures of due diligence and vetting.  This is particularly so given recent discoveries of widespread graft and corruption in NGOs and nonprofits which purport to be trying to do good things, but which are squandering and wasting and stealing a lot. 

Put another way, I think the Church - like many other wealthy individuals and organizations - struggle with finding worthwhile and reputable partners with whom they can work to put money and resources and such to good and productive use.  This may amount to de facto "restricted funds."

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

catastrophic-risk planning,

This may be part of the plan.  Dunnin-Kruger kicks in here, or ought to.

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

or a major future mission purpose.

See my prior comments re: the Church stagnating or losing ground in more affluent countries and growing in decidedly less economically developed ones.  The Church heavily subsidizes most of its efforts throughout the world, with very few countries being self-sustaining.

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

Without that, most nonprofit finance and governance experts would see it as evidence of under-deployment of charitable resources, not exemplary stewardship.

"Without that" being the operative phrase.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Quote

There is also no provision in Jacob 2 or Matthew 25 that specifies the timeframe in which money must be spent, nor any prohibition against developing long-term strategies to facilitate the fulfillment of the Church's mandates.  

Again, I wonder if Joseph in Egypt had his detractors, disparaging him for requiring large-scale "hoarding" of food during a time of plenty.

Or Noah, who was mocked for his preparation efforts that, at the time, seemed nonsensical to those who did not know what he knew, or else refused to accept/believe what he was saying.

This sounds reasonable in abstract, but when you look at it more closely, not only is it inconsistent with the Church's stated reasons for why the over-accumulation came into being in the first place (it exists as an economic inevitability of perpetually following the fixed principle of living on less than income, not because they are saving for anything in particular), it doesn't even make Economic sense--you can't eat shares of Nvidia, Bank of America, Meta, or United Health.

Joseph was justified in saving up grain stores, but the Church cannot be justified in saving up financial stores?  Is that your point?

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

What would you think of the Church revoking the law of tithing?

As long as it's revelatory, I'd be fine with it.  I think it would be difficult to reconcile such a revocation with D&C 119:4 ("And after that, those who have thus been tithed shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever...").

I think Joseph Smith had it right: “Let us here observe, that a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation” (Lectures on Faith, 6:7).

In my view, the Law of Tithing is akin to the Word of Wisdom, in that both are adapted to accommodate the Saints' weakness.  Tithing is, or should be, seen as preparatory for the Law of Consecration.  Those of us who cannot abide the lesser law are unlikely to accept the higher.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

The Church has the financial resources to do that very easily now, and the 200th anniversary would be a great day to drop that revelation.

I surmise you are speaking ironically here.  Am I correct?  You don't believe the Church is acting pursuant to revelation, right?

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

If that (or something that grand) is the top-secret plan, then what they are doing makes sense. Otherwise, it doesn't.

Dunning-Kruger has some real application here, I think.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Quote

As it is, though, they are being both excellent stewards of the Church's funds and are not enriching themselves.  To the contrary, many GAs make a substantial financial sacrifice when accepting the calling.  

We are left, then, with what I think is an argument that, as Kathleen Flake put it, is not about financial malfeasance or nonfeasance, but rather is a power struggle “about competing views of what should be done with Church money and who gets to say so.”

If they were being excellent stewards, they wouldn't be over-accumulating assets.

I recognize that your assessment sees things that way.  I think "over-accumulating assets" is a value judgment that may or may not have application and relevance here.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

In any case, I'm not talking about what they should do with their assets, other than pointing out that by any reasonable standard, they are over-accumulating.

That seems to be at the heart of your commentary.  You think the Church is "hoarding" and all that.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

I'm also talking about how the Church goes about making decisions on how it deploys resources. You are talking about whether the leaders of the Church are good men. These are two different things. 

Not sure about that.  You are attributing the "how" to the character and predilections of the Brethren:

Quote

Quote

The Brethren, who are charged with these heavy responsibilities, are not enriching themselves, and they are educated and experienced men, and they are good and decent men.  They are not avaricious, and I don't think they are irrationally holding on to money for the sake of holding on to money. 

I agree with all that. But frankly, I also think they are old, scared, lack vision, and are paralyzed by group think and tradition. They are hoarding money not because that is the goal, but rather it is an unintended artifact of the unsustainable and foolish "fixed principles" of running the Church on 90% of tithing revenue, guilting members to pay 10% of their income to the church regardless of whether the people need it more than the church does, and saving the rest in a secret fund that not even the apostles are allowed to see.

We both agree that the Church makes way more annual income than it can deploy responsibly.  I think we differ in why that is so.  You attribute this to unnecessarily collecting tithes (quite the presupposition-laden value judgment, that).  I attribute this to a vetting bottleneck and other pragmatic concerns.

We also differ in how the Church should proceed from this point.  You seem to be proposing that the Church should "revoke" the Law of Tithing.  I think the Church should continue its wise stewardship and also, per then-Bishop Causse, substantially increase its humanitarian and philanthropic efforts.  But even then the Church needs to be particularly circumspect.  This video has recently made an impression on me:

From the transcript:

Quote

We think of charity as “all good” … but that clearly isn’t always the case.

Generosity is a wonderful trait in a person and in societies, yet time after time “giving” morphs into something that hurts people.

Sometimes that’s on a national scale. Haiti, is the most screwed up society in the western hemisphere, yet it has over 10,000 charitable organizations running most basic services, and outspending the Haitian government by a 3 to 1 margin. And those charities have helped keep it a FAILED state.

We’ve all seen it on a personal level. Spoiled children who’ve become useless adults, enabled by their loving parents the whole way.

It FEELS GOOD to give money to a panhandler and certainly helps them out in the moment … but at the same time enables them to stay in an awful living condition. 

Humans are remarkably generous. About two-thirds of Americans give to charity, and assume that GIVING EQUALS HELPING. And often it does. Economically, the world is becoming a better place.

But the elephant in the room is this – what if our good intentions are actually hurting the people we’re trying to help?
...

Now, there are places where this pattern plays out on a massive scale:  charity to nations, where we routinely see the unintended consequences of helping gone bad.  Those consequences usually revolve around dependency and displacement.

Let’s start with our closets. When most of us donate old clothes, we probably imagine them going to someone dressed in rags who needs them. 

Here's what actually happens: about 70% of donated clothing worldwide ends up in Africa. And while some of it gets worn, the sheer volume has gutted local industries.

In Ghana, textile and clothing employment fell by 80% from 1975 to 2000. In Zambia, the industry went from 25,000 workers in the 1980s to below 10,000 by 2002. In Nigeria, textile manufacturing once employed over 200,000 people. Today, that number is essentially zero. 

The clothes arrive in shipping containers, get sorted in massive warehouses, and are sold in open-air markets for almost nothing. In Uganda, secondhand clothing now accounts for 81% of all clothing purchases. Local manufacturers simply can’t compete. An entire industrial sector across multiple countries, wiped out by generosity.

This happens far beyond the textile industry, but anytime foreigners come in with help that prevents parts of their economy from even existing.

And if you want to see what decades of charitable DEPENDENCY looks like on a national scale, Haiti is a great example.
...

Now let’s go from the macro down to the personal and take a look at grassroots giving. 

No fraud or bloated salaries. No government bureaucrats … just good, regular people trying to help through things like local food banks, building homes, or mission trips. Usually through small groups … often church-based.

These seem like the purest forms of giving … but that STILL doesn’t make the deeper problems go away. Here, we see two issues often arise:  EFFICIENCY and … again … DEPENDENCY.

Take food banks. What could be more straightforward than giving food to people in need? Let’s look at some numbers. 

In 2022, 49 million Americans depended on charitable food assistance. That's one in six people. That isn't emergency help for families going through a crisis. Nearly 58% of working households that use food banks do it regularly, as part of their monthly budget. It’s become permanent.

Because, like most charities, food banks measure their impact in OUTPUT … not long term results. Serving MORE meals is seen as a success, not more people who’ve become self-sufficient. 
...

Alright, back to good intentions.. And  let’s focus even more into the human brain, and look at the psychology of dependency.

Because often this isn’t just dollar inefficiencies … there’s a human cost as well, something that took one psychologist forty years to fully understand.

I started seeing charity differently after I read a book by Robert Lupton. He's a psychologist who spent decades doing urban ministry in Atlanta. He ran programs, organized volunteers, and watched what happened over decades.

He wrote “Toxic Charity: How Churches and Charities Hurt Those They Help.” … a book that made me rethink the best ways to help people.

In it, he shared a story about a Christmas "Adopt a Family" program he ran. Church volunteers would show up at housing projects with vans full of wrapped presents. The kids loved it, of course. The donors playing Santa Claus felt great too. 

But Lupton started noticing what it looked like from the other side. He saw a father watching strangers hand his children gifts he couldn't afford. He described how he’d watch the men retreat to back rooms, avoiding eye contact. Some left entirely.

Their dignity was being stripped away by these attempts at kindness. In front of their own children, they were being shown — by generous, well-meaning people — that they couldn't provide for their families. That someone else had to do it for them.

Lupton saw this happen year after year, and then started to see patterns that went far beyond Christmas.  He saw that when help flows in only one direction, the whole dynamic is built on need, and that need grows. Recipients learn to wait rather than act. 

Five Steps to Dependency

Lupton identified what he calls the five steps to dependency. It starts with APPRECIATION — genuine gratitude for help in a time of need. But if the help keeps coming, appreciation shifts to anticipation. People start expecting the next gift. Then comes EXPECTATION — it's no longer a surprise, it's assumed. That becomes ENTITLEMENT — a sense that the help is owed. And finally, DEPENDENCY — the inability or unwillingness to function without it.

This isn't a moral failing of the givers or the recipients. It's just how humans work. If someone keeps solving a problem for you, you stop trying to solve it yourself. 

It’s why free food distribution didn't reduce hunger lines — it grew them. 

Volunteers who converged on neighborhoods to plant flowers and pick up trash weren't helping residents take pride in their community.  They were signaling that residents couldn't do it themselves. The same families showed up year after year at the same Christmas giveaways, and nobody asked why they still needed help.

Lupton described how one-way giving creates a hierarchy that's almost impossible to escape. The giver is permanently superior, and the receiver is permanently dependent. However warm the intentions, that dynamic can be dehumanizing and, at the same time, keep recipients from moving forward.

At one point, he said, "One of the surest ways to destroy self-worth is subsidizing the idleness of able-bodied people."

That sounds harsh. But think about what it means to be on the receiving end of constant help. Every gift is a reminder that you can't provide for yourself. Every act of charity confirms your position at the bottom as the object of someone else's pity.

Humans have an innate need to feel useful … to solve problems and build things and provide for their families. When charity takes those opportunities away — even with the best intentions — it doesn't lift people up. It hollows them out.

Betterment vs. development

Lupton makes a distinction that I like a lot: the difference between betterment and development.

Betterment does things FOR people. It improves their conditions in the short term.

Development does things WITH people. It strengthens their capacity. It’s the embodiment of the, “Give a man a fish” versus “teach a man to fish” saying.

Betterment feels good and shows quick results. If you give a panhandler some money, his day is immediately better … his long term situation? Not so much. Because we’ve also made it easier for him to continue to live in that dehumanizing situation.

Development is slower, messier, and not very Instagrammable. But development is what actually changes lives. And most charity is stuck in betterment.

Yesterday you said (presumably as if it would be a good idea) that the Church could set "some audacious goal that required a $100 Billion commitment over the next 5 years and were hiring people by the thousands to make it happen."  As the above content-creator notes, this is surely a well-intentioned proposal, but are we considering the inadvertent consequences?  

"It FEELS GOOD to give money to a panhandler and certainly helps them out in the moment … but at the same time enables them to stay in an awful living condition."  Yep.  So if John walks by a panhandler and declines to give him a tenner, is the bystander justified in dressing John down?  Accusing him of not caring for his fellow man?  Of being a heartless cheapskate?  

A summary of the above YouTube video (via Grok) :

Quote

Core Thesis

The document challenges the assumption that all charity is inherently good. While generosity is positive and widespread, well-intentioned giving often creates long-term harm by fostering dependency, destroying local economies, eroding human dignity, and measuring the wrong things (outputs like “meals served” instead of outcomes like “people becoming self-sufficient”).

Thoughts?  Is it possible that "a $100 Billion commitment over the next 5 years" might yield results such as "fostering dependency, destroying local economies, eroding human dignity, and measuring the wrong things"?

Quote

The goal isn’t to stop giving, but to give smarter — focusing on development (“doing with people”) rather than relief (“doing for people”).

Thoughts?  Is it possible that the Church, aware of the foregoing pitfalls, is "focusing on development ... rather than relief"?

Quote

Main Sections & Key Arguments

1. Problems with Charities & Non-Profits

• Charities are run by fallible people: rare fraud cases (embezzlement, fake boards) and massive government welfare waste ($66B improper payments in 2024).
• More common issues: bloated overhead/fundraising (e.g., breast cancer charity spending millions on mailers but almost nothing on actual screenings), political drift, and poor metrics.
• They often perpetuate the problems they claim to solve in order to stay in business.

This does not really seem to apply to the Church, but I would be interested in countervailing views.

Quote

2. Charity to Nations (Large-Scale Aid)

• Foreign aid and donations frequently backfire:
  • Used clothing donations to Africa have devastated textile industries (Ghana lost ~80% of jobs; Nigeria lost hundreds of thousands; Uganda now buys mostly secondhand).
  • Haiti example: 10,000+ NGOs outspend the government 3:1, providing “life support” but removing incentives for the government to build capacity. Post-2010 earthquake aid ($13B) mostly bypassed local systems; Red Cross raised $500M but built only 6 homes. Rice imports flooded the market, destroying local farming.

Again, I think the Brethren, rather than being frozen due to being "old, scared, lack vision, and are paralyzed by group think and tradition," are instead quite cognizant of these risks.

Quote

3. Grassroots Giving (Everyday Efforts)

• Food banks: 49 million Americans (1 in 6) used them in 2022; many now treat it as a regular budget item rather than emergency help.
• Habitat for Humanity & mission trips ($2–3B industry): Unskilled volunteers displace local jobs and do lower-quality work; travel costs could hire locals for far more impact.
• Result: communities become weaker, not stronger.

Oi.  No easy answer, really.

Quote

4. The Psychology of Dependency (heavily draws from Robert Lupton’s book Toxic Charity)

• Lupton’s “Five Steps to Dependency”: appreciation → anticipation → expectation → entitlement → dependency.
• One-way giving creates a hierarchy that strips dignity (“the surest way to destroy self-worth is subsidizing the idleness of able-bodied people”).
• Key distinction: Betterment (short-term relief) vs. Development (building capacity and self-reliance).
• Government programs often worsen this via “benefits cliffs” and incentives not to work.

Again, I think the Brethren are very aware of this.

Quote

5. What Actually Works?

• Emergency relief is appropriate in true crises (disasters).

Would you agree that the Church, well-known for deploying hundreds of yellow-shirted volunteers after catastropic storms and such (as well as many other service projects), is already doing fairly well at this?  

Quote

• Long-term success comes from holistic development (skills, jobs, local ownership) — examples: Bangladesh and Rwanda reducing poverty through investment over aid.

How about this?  Some examples of the Church's efforts along these lines:

1. Perpetual Education Fund (PEF) 

• Launched in 2001 by President Hinckley as a revolving loan fund (not grants).
• Provides low-interest loans for vocational, technical, and job-focused education in areas of widespread poverty (primarily outside the U.S. and Canada).
• Recipients must complete personal-finance and career-planning training first, then repay the loan (typically within 5 years) so the money can help the next person.
• Impact (as of early 2026, 25th anniversary): Helped more than 130,000 members in 80+ countries. About 88% of graduates report finding better employment. It has broken cycles of poverty through marketable skills and self-reliance.

This is textbook “investment over aid”—local ownership via repayment, skills for local jobs, and dignity preserved.

2. Global Self-Reliance Initiative (launched ~2015)

• Operates in 130+ countries with small, peer-supported groups (8–10 people) that meet weekly for 12-week courses.
• Four core courses:
  • Personal Finances
  • Finding a Better Job
  • Education for Better Work (often paired with PEF)
  • Starting and Growing a Business
• Emphasizes spiritual + temporal self-reliance—faith, accountability, hard work, and mutual support networks.
• Participants (unemployed, underemployed, recent converts, single parents, etc.) create personal plans and hold each other accountable.
• By 2018 it had already reached over 670,000 people worldwide; numbers have grown significantly since.

3. Employment Services & Resource Centers

• Free job coaching, résumé help, interview training, online job boards, and workshops.
• Deseret Industries (thrift stores) doubles as job-training sites where participants gain real work experience while serving others.

4. BYU-Pathway Worldwide

• Affordable, online university pathway (degrees from BYU-Idaho or Ensign College) designed specifically for working adults in developing areas or with limited access.
• Combines academic skills with spiritual growth and self-reliance principles. It’s built for people who need flexible, job-relevant education without leaving home or incurring heavy debt.

5. Latter-day Saint Charities Sustainable Development Projects

While the Church still provides emergency relief (disasters, etc.), its long-term humanitarian work prioritizes capacity-building and local ownership:

• Clean Water: Wells and systems are installed only with community training, maintenance plans, and revolving funds for repairs—so locals own and sustain them.
• Agriculture & Food Security: Irrigation schemes, sustainable farming techniques, and livestock projects (often with training and revolving community funds) to increase local production rather than importing aid.
• Vocational & Medical Training: Partnerships that train local healthcare workers, teachers, and entrepreneurs instead of providing ongoing external services.
• Wheelchairs, Vision, and Other Aids: Distributed with local training and repair networks.

All of these flow from the Church’s core welfare philosophy (rooted in revelations like D&C 58:26–28 and 104): “It must needs be done in mine own way”—helping people become independent so they can serve and build Zion. Fast offerings and other donations fund the work, but the focus is always “teach a man to fish” through skills, employment, education, and local leadership.

These programs are the practical outworking of what the charity research document advocates: development instead of dependency. They preserve dignity, create local jobs and businesses, and turn recipients into givers.

You have previously stated that assessment of the Church "is in fact purely clinical and empirical."  Does your assessment take the foregoing efforts into account?

Back to the Grok summary of the above video:

Quote

• Practical ideas: food co-ops (recipients pay/contribute), thrift stores that teach job skills, micro-enterprises run by former recipients.
• Personal takeaway: Give in true emergencies (GoFundMe, etc.), but otherwise help people like you’d help your grown children — promote independence.

Overall Tone & Conclusion

LaCorte is not anti-charity; he’s pro-effective charity. He shares how researching this “changed how I think about giving entirely.” The research notes show deep sourcing (Lupton’s book, economic data, scandals, AI-assisted fact-checking). The script ends optimistically: Africa is improving in many ways, and smarter giving can reduce future need instead of just making donors feel good.

I am quite interested in your assessment of LaCorte's article/video, and how the Church fares when viewed in relation to it.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

From my perspective, the Church has not been exonerated in the tithing lawsuits--even though it has been cleared of committing fraud in the legal sense, it has in fact fallen far short of being adequately transparent with the people from whom it seeks donations.

Then how is it that the lawsuits have all concluded?

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

The best argument you have is special pleading.

I think we can reasonably disagree about that.  Special pleading is an informal fallacy where someone applies a general rule to others but claims an unjustified exemption for themselves or a specific case. It is a form of double standard or ad hoc rescue, where, to avoid evidence, a person arbitrarily cites special circumstances to make their case an exception.

I don't think I've done any of that.  I think all churches and charities should be as financially wise as the Church has been.

You have presented, many times now, arguments - predicated on a value judgment - that the Church has too much money / is not spending enough of its money on humanitarian/philanthropic efforts / should give away large chunks of its wealth based on percentages (with no apparent regard for the need/effectiveness of such distributions) / should revoke the Law of Tithing, and so on.

I have presented a number of what I think are reasoned and principled and pragmatic and evidence-based responses to your proposals.  Perhaps of particular note, I have repeatedly referenced the "bottleneck" the Church faces in deploying the sort of large-scale humanitarian expenditures which both you and we (via Bishop Causse's comments) want to see happen, but I don't think you have addressed that much, if at all.

Rather than "special pleading," we simply have a disagreement based on presuppositions, value judgments, and differing areas of emphasis.  I'm okay with that.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

I agree with you that the leaders are good, smart, and well-intentioned. But the institution itself is dominated by culture, structure, and processes that prevent them from making the bold decisions that are needed and result in their resources primarily being dedicated to over-accumulation of more and more resources as if that were an end until itself. If that is their mission they are succeeding. If that isn't their mission they are failing. I'm not blaming them as individuals. I'm blaming the institution itself.

What are your thoughts about the comments from then-Bishop / now-Elder Causse regarding substantially increasing the Church's humanitarian/philanthropic footprint?

What are your thoughts about the vetting "bottleneck" I have referenced?

Candidly, I think we are sounding like we agree on a surprising number of things, but we differ substantially in our presuppositions about the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 5 by smac97

[Analytics]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Beyond a normal operating reserve" compared to what?

Compared to mainstream nonprofit reserve guidance.

A typical operating reserve benchmark is often 3 to 6 months of expenses, though the right amount depends on revenue volatility, fixed obligations, program risk, liquidity needs, and strategic plans. The Council of Nonprofits says no single reserve policy fits every organization, but notes that nonprofits are often advised to keep 3 to 6 months of operating funds on hand. (National Council of Nonprofits)

Other nonprofit finance guidance commonly frames two years of expenses as a very high-end reserve level, not a normal operating reserve target. (Nonprofit Financial Commons)

So 30 times annual expenses is not just “above average.” It is roughly 360 months of expenses. Compared to a 6-month reserve, it is about 60 times larger. Compared to a 2-year high-end benchmark, it is about 15 times larger.

That does not prove the reserve is wrong, but it shifts the burden heavily onto the organization to explain why such a level is mission-necessary.

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In any event, I'm quite okay with the Church doing some things that are out of the ordinary.  For example, we spend large amounts of money building temples in which proxy ordinances are performed.

Compared to what? Certainly not compared to how much you spend every year purchasing more shares of Nvidia, Bank of America, Meta, and United Health.

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Clearly disclosed" to whom?  What is the legal/ethical basis for this disclosure requirement?  

If it was clearly disclosed to you, a tithe-paying defender of the Church, you wouldn't have to speculate about why they are doing what they are doing. Posing your question to GPT:

“Clearly disclosed” mainly means disclosed to the governing board, and then disclosed to donors and the public at a level appropriate to the organization’s legal status and fundraising claims.

There are two different bases:

Legally, ordinary U.S. public charities generally disclose major financial information through Form 990, which is publicly inspectable. Churches are largely exempt from that specific Form 990 filing requirement, so the legal disclosure floor for churches is lower. That means the law may not require the same public disclosure from a church that it would require from a comparable secular charity. (IRS)

Ethically and as governance best practice, the basis is broader: nonprofits hold assets in trust for a mission, rely on donor confidence, and receive tax-favored status. Independent Sector frames good nonprofit practice around legal compliance, public disclosure, effective governance, financial oversight, and responsible fundraising. (Independent Sector) BoardSource similarly describes board members as trustees of the organization’s assets who must exercise due diligence and oversight over the organization’s financial condition. (BoardSource)

So the strongest “must disclose” claim is internal: the full board or equivalent governing fiduciaries should know the material facts. The public/donor disclosure claim is more nuanced: not every investment position must be public, but donors should not be left with a materially misleading picture of the organization’s financial capacity, reserve philosophy, or use of donated funds.

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Church has all sorts of "long-term obligations."  Millions of members.

Serious question here. In what way are "millions of members" a financial obligation of the Church? When I hear "millions of members" I envision millions of tithe payers and millions of people doing volunteer work to keep the Church going. How is having members a liability?

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Tens of thousands of congregations.  Tens of thousands of missionaries.  Thousands of church buildings.  Hundreds of temples.

These things have always been financed by the membership through tithing and volunteer work. Are you envisioning a future of the Church where there is no tithing revenue and no volunteer service?

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Many many of business interests, including farms, commercial properties, etc.,

These are assets, not liabilities.

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Educational efforts.  Humanitarian efforts.  Deseret Industries.  Welfare Square.  Regular meetings and lessons.  And on and on.

Do you envision a future without tithing revenue and volunteer service?

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Church's center of gravity seems to be moving away from the relatively affluent North America to a more diversified - and substantially less financially secure - international space.

It is also less expensive there--building a meeting house in Mali is a lot cheaper than building one in Logan.

In any case, if they have a deliberate strategy to save up $500 billion (or whatever) to subsidize the Church in Africa, they should clearly explain that this is the goal and why that is the amount they need to operate there.

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And the Church intends to operate in perpetuity, at least until the Second Coming.  And we don't really know when that will be.  Could be years, could be decades or more.  

So what? Are you saying that the future Church needs giant reserves because it is both going to be insanely expensive to operate and it won't have any future tithing dollars or any future volunteers?

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Lots and lots of long-term obligations here, all of which will require maintenance and financial support after everyone reading this is dead and buried.

You still haven't explained why the "fixed principle" of living within the Church's means is going to break down in the future, requiring trillions of dollars in assets.

And if spending 70% of the Church's annual income on growing its investment empire is actually a strategic goal for these purposes you speculate, why doesn't the Church just explain this to the members?

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have previously written at some length about how the Church having huge financial reserves is a fairly recent phenomenon (just in the last few decades), and also that distribution/funding of humanitarian and philanthropic and religious efforts on the scale at which the Church is operating (internationally, with huge amounts of money potentially in play, with dozens/hundreds of "partners" and governments and such with whom the Church must cooperate) requires huge measures of due diligence and vetting.  This is particularly so given recent discoveries of widespread graft and corruption in NGOs and nonprofits which purport to be trying to do good things, but which are squandering and wasting and stealing a lot. 

Yes, wisely spending money on the Church's religious and philanthropic mission is difficult and risky, just as wisely investing money is risky. That is why GPT suggested that the Church's actions look more like the servant who was afraid to invest and instead hid the money. He was taking it safe.

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Put another way, I think the Church - like many other wealthy individuals and organizations - struggle with finding worthwhile and reputable partners with whom they can work to put money and resources and such to good and productive use.  This may amount to de facto "restricted funds."

While that's true, it doesn't change the fact that they claim the money is being saved for a rainy day and not for a day that they figure out a way to safely use it for charitable purposes.

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

See my prior comments re: the Church stagnating or losing ground in more affluent countries and growing in decidedly less economically developed ones.  The Church heavily subsidizes most of its efforts throughout the world, with very few countries being self-sustaining.

Stated another way, the amount of subsidization you are speculating will be needed doesn't seem anywhere near in proportion to the amount of money being saved.

 

[Analytics]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Joseph was justified in saving up grain stores, but the Church cannot be justified in saving up financial stores?  Is that your point?

My point is that "best practice is a reserve policy with a purpose, target range, board oversight, disclosure, and rules for use and replenishment—not endless accumulation by default."

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I surmise you are speaking ironically here.  Am I correct?  You don't believe the Church is acting pursuant to revelation, right?

A "revelation" is whatever the president of the Church says is a revelation.

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

We both agree that the Church makes way more annual income than it can deploy responsibly.  I think we differ in why that is so.  You attribute this to unnecessarily collecting tithes (quite the presupposition-laden value judgment, that).  I attribute this to a vetting bottleneck and other pragmatic concerns.

Not exactly. My point is that when you look at total resources (tithing plus investment income), the Church has waayyyyy more resources than it knows what to do with. This situation isn't a temporary bottleneck. It is endemic to the structure and culture of the Church. That is the problem.

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Thoughts?  Is it possible that "a $100 Billion commitment over the next 5 years" might yield results such as "fostering dependency, destroying local economies, eroding human dignity, and measuring the wrong things"?

Of course. Effectively deploying resources of this order of magnitude is incredibly tough. 

Would you agree with me that as a first step, the Church ought to tell the apostles how much money the church has? Or do you think it can better deal with this issue by keeping the apostles in the dark regarding the resources at the Church's disposal?

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Thoughts?  Is it possible that the Church, aware of the foregoing pitfalls, is "focusing on development ... rather than relief"?

I think the Church is using the vast majority of its resources to make the size of its investment portfolio bigger and that as it continues to do that, this problem will get exponentially worse.

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This does not really seem to apply to the Church, but I would be interested in countervailing views.

Again, I think the Brethren, rather than being frozen due to being "old, scared, lack vision, and are paralyzed by group think and tradition," are instead quite cognizant of these risks.

I think their councils work exactly the way Bednar suggested. The junior apostle comes in to the meeting about the deposition of tithes. Along with the other apostles, he isn't told how much money the Church has. He isn't told what their investment income is, either. He is instructed that they "simply" do what they have always done--they set and manage towards a budget based on their projected tithing revenue, send extra money to Ensign Peak Advisors, and are not allowed to see what happens to it. I believe they are instructed to have reverence to this process. I believe a fundamental part of their process is that regardless of how many wonderful ideas they have about how the Church should deploy its resources, at the end of the day they have a budget equal to 90% of that year's tithing projection, so if they want to increase funding for project X by a dollar, they must reduce funding for something else by a dollar. According to everything I've seen and heard about the Council of the Deposition of tithes, that is how they operate.

And they aren't allowed to question the process.

If you look at this from the perspective of an MBA, their  process is fundamentally flawed.

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Would you agree that the Church, well-known for deploying hundreds of yellow-shirted volunteers after catastropic storms and such (as well as many other service projects), is already doing fairly well at this?  

I think doing that is wonderful. But it doesn't change the fact that the Church uses the vast majority of its financial resources to grow the size of its investment portfolio, which makes the problems you are talking about exponentially more difficult. 

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

How about this?  Some examples of the Church's efforts along these lines:

1. Perpetual Education Fund (PEF) 

• Launched in 2001 by President Hinckley as a revolving loan fund (not grants).
• Provides low-interest loans for vocational, technical, and job-focused education in areas of widespread poverty (primarily outside the U.S. and Canada).
• Recipients must complete personal-finance and career-planning training first, then repay the loan (typically within 5 years) so the money can help the next person.
• Impact (as of early 2026, 25th anniversary): Helped more than 130,000 members in 80+ countries. About 88% of graduates report finding better employment. It has broken cycles of poverty through marketable skills and self-reliance.

This is textbook “investment over aid”—local ownership via repayment, skills for local jobs, and dignity preserved.

2. Global Self-Reliance Initiative (launched ~2015)

• Operates in 130+ countries with small, peer-supported groups (8–10 people) that meet weekly for 12-week courses.
• Four core courses:
  • Personal Finances
  • Finding a Better Job
  • Education for Better Work (often paired with PEF)
  • Starting and Growing a Business
• Emphasizes spiritual + temporal self-reliance—faith, accountability, hard work, and mutual support networks.
• Participants (unemployed, underemployed, recent converts, single parents, etc.) create personal plans and hold each other accountable.
• By 2018 it had already reached over 670,000 people worldwide; numbers have grown significantly since.

3. Employment Services & Resource Centers

• Free job coaching, résumé help, interview training, online job boards, and workshops.
• Deseret Industries (thrift stores) doubles as job-training sites where participants gain real work experience while serving others.

4. BYU-Pathway Worldwide

• Affordable, online university pathway (degrees from BYU-Idaho or Ensign College) designed specifically for working adults in developing areas or with limited access.
• Combines academic skills with spiritual growth and self-reliance principles. It’s built for people who need flexible, job-relevant education without leaving home or incurring heavy debt.

5. Latter-day Saint Charities Sustainable Development Projects

While the Church still provides emergency relief (disasters, etc.), its long-term humanitarian work prioritizes capacity-building and local ownership:

• Clean Water: Wells and systems are installed only with community training, maintenance plans, and revolving funds for repairs—so locals own and sustain them.
• Agriculture & Food Security: Irrigation schemes, sustainable farming techniques, and livestock projects (often with training and revolving community funds) to increase local production rather than importing aid.
• Vocational & Medical Training: Partnerships that train local healthcare workers, teachers, and entrepreneurs instead of providing ongoing external services.
• Wheelchairs, Vision, and Other Aids: Distributed with local training and repair networks.

All of these flow from the Church’s core welfare philosophy (rooted in revelations like D&C 58:26–28 and 104): “It must needs be done in mine own way”—helping people become independent so they can serve and build Zion. Fast offerings and other donations fund the work, but the focus is always “teach a man to fish” through skills, employment, education, and local leadership.

These programs are the practical outworking of what the charity research document advocates: development instead of dependency. They preserve dignity, create local jobs and businesses, and turn recipients into givers.

I think that is all wonderful. But it doesn't change the fact that the Church allocates the vast majority of its resources to growing the size of its investment portfolio rather than to these things.

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You have previously stated that assessment of the Church "is in fact purely clinical and empirical."  Does your assessment take the foregoing efforts into account?

Q: The Church does some amazingly good things with the 30% of its annual income that it deploys towards its mission. Did you take that into account when analyzing its transparency, the size of its reserves, and its internal decision making processes?

A: Yes. That matters, but it does not answer the whole governance question.

Doing substantial good with the deployed 30% is highly relevant to mission effectiveness. It shows that the organization is not inert, fraudulent, or incapable of impact.

But it does not by itself resolve questions about the remaining 70%, especially if that portion is repeatedly accumulated, not clearly tied to a reserve target or deployment plan, and not fully visible to relevant decision-makers or donors. Governance analysis looks at the whole system: impact, transparency, capital policy, oversight, opportunity cost, and whether donor resources are being used consistently with the organization’s mission and representations.

So the fair conclusion would be: the good work should be credited, but it does not immunize the reserve policy or governance structure from scrutiny.

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am quite interested in your assessment of LaCorte's article/video, and how the Church fares when viewed in relation to it.

I know effectively deploying resources is tough, but I don't have any expertise in that area. 

And this is a fundamentally different issue of whether the Church is being wise when it refuses to share its financial information with apostles, whether it is wise to have a "fixed principle" of always operating on less than that year's income, and whether its reserve fund is obscenely too high.

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think I've done any of that.  I think all churches and charities should be as financially wise as the Church has been.

Really? Do you think, for example, that the United Way should stop telling its board of directors how much money it has saved, and should start using 70% of its resources to increase the size of that fund regardless of how big it gets? 

Hmmm.

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What are your thoughts about the comments from then-Bishop / now-Elder Causse regarding substantially increasing the Church's humanitarian/philanthropic footprint?

I think that's great as far as it goes. But it doesn't address any of the concerns I've raised in this thread.

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What are your thoughts about the vetting "bottleneck" I have referenced?

I think those are totally valid issues, but it is ultimately a different question than the question of how big reserves should be, whether the Church's "fixed principle" is wise, and whether the church should be more transparent with the apostles, general membership, and society at large. 

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Candidly, I think we are sounding like we agree on a surprising number of things, but we differ substantially in our presuppositions about the Church.

I realize charitable endeavors are really difficult. Just like building a high-quality temple on-time and on-budget is difficult. Or choosing a new employee is difficult. Or just like anything else is difficult.

And I also believe that the leaders of the Church are genuinely good guys who aren't making themselves personally rich off of the thing. In fact, for reasons I can't discuss I could be more confident about this than you are.

What I do know about is how to think about reserve levels and how to evaluate whether the reserves are too small, too big, or broadly justifiable. And I do know some things about organizational governance and how groups should be structured to avoid predictable pitfalls such as groupthink, institutional inertia, deference to seniority, secrecy norms, and distorted incentives. My criticisms against the Church on these issues of structure, transparency, and fallacious principles. It isn't against the brethren as individuals. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

I certainly wouldn't begrudge you for not being interested in reading the AI content, but if you are interested in my thought process, feel free to read the prompts I wrote.

I skip AI much of the time myself.  
 

What would be nice if someone uses AI in their post is if they included a TL;DR followed by a summary at the top in their own words of what they consider the essentials. If they want to put it at the bottom because it’s easier, then set it off with something to catch attention like a lot of ******* and identify it as a self composed summary (using TL;DR seems like the easiest way to do that to me).

Having said that, I greatly appreciate everyone, even those using AI, having substantive conversations where they are attempting to both share their ideas and understand others.  The tone of recent threads have been much more enjoyable overall, so a shout out to smac and others for staying on the positive side of personal and making the extra effort (and it can be a lot at times) to understand before criticizing.  

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

 

In any event, I'm quite okay with the Church doing some things that are out of the ordinary.  For example, we spend large amounts of money building temples in which proxy ordinances are performed.

 

Compared to what?

Compared to other religious and nonprofit and charitable groups.

28 minutes ago, Analytics said:

If it was clearly disclosed to you, a tithe-paying defender of the Church, you wouldn't have to speculate about why they are doing what they are doing.

And yet I, a tithe-paying defender of the Church, am comfortable with the current state of things.  Most reasonably-informed members understand and appreciate that the people who have access to and control over the Church's finances have put in place numerous safeguards, oversights, checks and balances, etc. so as to reduce the risk of misuse of such funds.  We have the Council on the Disposition of Tithes, the Budget Committee, the Appropriations Committee, the Church Budget Office, the Church Audit Committee, and more.  And these controls seem to be working.

We get annual reports from the Audit Committee.  Moreover, we see the beautiful temples, the tens of thousands of missionaries, the thousands of church buildings, the Church's humanitarian and philanthropic efforts, the canneries and storehouses, Welfare Square, Humanitarian Square, BYU, BYU-Hawaii, BYU-Idaho, BYU-Pathway, PEF, and so on.  

Could there be "more" financial transparency?  Yes.  Is "more" an endlessly malleable concept in this context?  Yes.

28 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

The Church has all sorts of "long-term obligations."  Millions of members.

Serious question here. In what way are "millions of members" a financial obligation of the Church?  When I hear "millions of members" I envision millions of tithe payers and millions of people doing volunteer work to keep the Church going. How is having members a liability?

Virtually all of the Church's non-investment expenditures are intended to benefit its millions of members.  The Church pays for buildings (thousands of them), utilities, maintenance costs, insurance (apparently we self-insure our facilities), lesson materials, missionary costs, Deseret Industries, Welfare Square, Bishop's Storehouses, BYU, BYU-Hawaii, BYU-Idaho, BYU-Pathway, PEF, Fast Offerings, and so on.  All of these efforts are funded by money received and managed by the Church for the benefit of its members (and others).

28 minutes ago, Analytics said:

These things have always been financed by the membership through tithing and volunteer work.

Yes.  "Through tithing" donated to the Church, and "volunteer work" organized and managed by the Church.

28 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Are you envisioning a future of the Church where there is no tithing revenue and no volunteer service?

No.

28 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

The Church's center of gravity seems to be moving away from the relatively affluent North America to a more diversified - and substantially less financially secure - international space.

It is also less expensive there--building a meeting house in Mali is a lot cheaper than building one in Logan.

And yet the Church still subsidizes, often heavily so, most of its operations outside of North America.  

28 minutes ago, Analytics said:

In any case, if they have a deliberate strategy to save up $500 billion (or whatever) to subsidize the Church in Africa, they should clearly explain that this is the goal and why that is the amount they need to operate there.

Presuppositions and value judgments have a role to play in public discourse, to be sure.

28 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

And the Church intends to operate in perpetuity, at least until the Second Coming.  And we don't really know when that will be.  Could be years, could be decades or more.  

So what? Are you saying that the future Church needs giant reserves because it is both going to be insanely expensive to operate and it won't have any future tithing dollars or any future volunteers?

I am saying circumstances can change, and change drastically.  I am glad the Church is investing in practical things like farms and ranches, but other investments are also appropriate.

28 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Lots and lots of long-term obligations here, all of which will require maintenance and financial support after everyone reading this is dead and buried.

You still haven't explained why the "fixed principle" of living within the Church's means is going to break down in the future, requiring trillions of dollars in assets.

"Trillions."

28 minutes ago, Analytics said:

And if spending 70% of the Church's annual income on growing its investment empire is actually a strategic goal for these purposes you speculate, why doesn't the Church just explain this to the members?

As noted above, we have substantial safeguards in place regarding the Church's finances.  Nebulous demands for "transparency" and "more" seem to be coming mostly from people who have no real standing relative to the Church.  It's an interesting phenomenon to see anti-Mormons hector the Church purportedly on behalf of "the members" regarding matters that "the members" are quite capable of evaluating themselves.

28 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Yes, wisely spending money on the Church's religious and philanthropic mission is difficult and risky, just as wisely investing money is risky. That is why GPT suggested that the Church's actions look more like the servant who was afraid to invest and instead hid the money. He was taking it safe.

Perhaps there is a better way to advance your argument than to present conclusory moral pronouncements about the Church from an AI platform based on value-judgment-and-presupposition-filled prompts from a strident critic of the Church.

28 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Put another way, I think the Church - like many other wealthy individuals and organizations - struggle with finding worthwhile and reputable partners with whom they can work to put money and resources and such to good and productive use.  This may amount to de facto "restricted funds."

While that's true, it doesn't change the fact that they claim the money is being saved for a rainy day and not for a day that they figure out a way to safely use it for charitable purposes.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here.

I do, however, appreciate your acknowledgment of the point.  I think the "bottleneck" issue is a very important point relative to your criticisms.  You seem to be proposing that the Church should (A) spend more on humanitarian efforts, or (B) revoke the Law of Tithing (or perhaps to a bit of both?).

Assuming, arguendo, that revoking the Law of Tithing is a matter requiring revelation, and that such a revelation does not happen for the time being, then (B) seems to be off the table.  That leaves (A).  

From 2020:

Church finances: Presiding Bishopric offers unique look inside financial operations of growing faith

Quote

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doubled its humanitarian spending over the past five years and now annually provides nearly $1 billion in combined humanitarian and welfare aid, the church’s Presiding Bishopric said this week in a rare interview.

From 2015 to 2020, the Church doubled its humanitarian spending.  

Would you agree that this was a good, even a very good, development?

Quote

But the church’s work and missions cannot be reduced to its humanitarian spending and charity efforts, said Presiding Bishop Gérald Caussé and his counselors, Bishop Dean M. Davies and Bishop W. Christopher Waddell. Those represent just one function of a sprawling global faith that funds 30,000 congregations, more than 200 temples and educational opportunities for hundreds of thousands of students while also providing food, clothing and shelter for hundreds of thousands of people a year.

“It’s no surprise we are talking about billions of dollars,” Bishop Caussé said. “Nobody should be surprised, given the number of members, millions of members, 16 million members in so many countries. This is a church that has become quite large, and so there’s a large budget, and we are grateful for that because that’s an opportunity to expand the reach of all the good that the church can do around the world.”

The bishopric gave a unique look at the breadth and depth of the financial dealings of the global faith in a sit-down interview with the Deseret News and Church News two weeks after the bishopric spoke to The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) answering critics’ charges that the church is amassing wealth.

This entire article is worth a read.

Quote

To the contrary, church leaders said it is fulfilling its mission to care for the poor, spread the gospel of Jesus Christ around the world, strengthen the spiritual foundation of its members and live the principles of self-reliance it teaches to all.

The church’s investment arm, Ensign Peak Advisors, reportedly has grown to $100 billion, a figure claimed by the brother of a former worker at Ensign Peak. The members of the bishopric said they were aware that those reports drew both praise from some about the way church leaders are managing what they and members consider sacred donations as well as criticism and questions about what the church is doing with such a large amount of money.

They did not confirm whether that amount was accurate, but they said they expect leaner economic times will come in the future and also acknowledged that the church’s needs and expenditures are accelerating as the faith grows around the world. They also rejected the notion they are hoarding money for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Instead, they said, they are making prudent, diverse investments to protect against economic downturns and prepare for the future.

This seems broadly reasonable.

Also, I can't help but note the "100 billion," a remarkable number, and compare it to an even more remarkable number you dropped above: "Trillions."

Quote

What follows is a look at the faith’s holdings through the eyes of the men tasked with receiving and distributing donations to the church.

‘We won’t have to stop’

Bishop Caussé said the size of the fund is a proper backstop for the church’s full breadth and depth of operation.

“Most of the growth, I have to say, is because we are right now in the longest period of prosperity in the United States that has ever been recorded, and this is creating that surge of financial markets,” he said. “We are just beneficiaries of it.”

In 2008, the credit crisis and related stock market plunge reportedly obliterated 21% of the value of Ensign Peak’s holdings, according to a document produced by the former employee’s brother. The Ensign Peak fund reportedly has more than doubled in the subsequent, ongoing economic upswing.

The bishopric did not confirm those reports, but did say the church froze budgets and hiring during the crisis. The only budget item that increased in that period was humanitarian and welfare spending, because church leaders knew more people would need help.

Quite a bit of fluctuation here.

Quote

“There will be future downturns,” Bishop Waddell said. “How extensive, how dramatic we don’t know. But one of the comments we made to the Journal was that if that were to happen, because of the reserves being carefully watched over, protected and wisely handled, we won’t have to stop missionary work, we won’t have to stop maintaining buildings and building temples, we won’t have to stop humanitarian and welfare work, we won’t have to stop education work. What the journalist (wrote) was that we won’t have to stop missionary work, period. Well, there’s more than that.”

This sounds pretty rational.

Quote

The Presiding Bishopric said a large reserve is necessary, specifically citing as reasons the church’s expansion into countries in which congregations are not self-sustaining, the construction of 50 more temples and the growing cost of providing educational opportunities for more and more students. The church is educating 880,500 students through its seminary and institutes program, universities and Pathway program.

They said tithing and fast offerings are spiritual principles that benefit church members, shared more details about the church’s farms and educational expenses and described its humanitarian donations as precision-guided aid.

“It is a church,” Bishop Caussé said. “It’s not a financial institution … and because it is a church, the funds that are managed within the church are contributed by the members of the church and are really sacred. We really consider those funds as belonging to the Lord.

“It’s difficult to understand the church,” he added. “If you look at it as a financial institution, you will never understand it. You have to look at it as an organization of consecrated followers of Jesus Christ. This is what it is, with a mission assigned by the Lord.”

Your various and repeated characterizations of the Church as a "hedge fund" come to mind.

Quote

Humanitarian and welfare spending

The three bishops challenged some of what they’ve seen in previous reports.

“The people who say we’re not doing our part, that is just not true,” Bishop Waddell said. “We’re talking close to $1 billion in that welfare/humanitarian area on an annual basis. Yes, we are using our resources to bless the poor and the needy as well as all of the other responsibilities we have as a church.”

The figure includes all humanitarian and welfare expenditures, including fast offering aid.

The budget for humanitarian work “has gone up dramatically,” Bishop Waddell said.

In fact, Bishop Caussé added, humanitarian expenditures have doubled in the past five years.

“And we believe they are going to increase fast,” he said.

This is six years old.  And the Church has improved since then.

Quote

Increases in humanitarian and welfare spending are driven first by the contributions and volunteerism of church members, the bishops said. The other major factor is how quickly the church can ensure new avenues for precise giving. For example, Latter-day Saint Charities carefully and thoroughly assesses each partner. “The last thing you want to do is just give them money and then you really don’t know where it goes,” Bishop Davies said. “So we have both missionaries and area staff on the ground, feet on the ground, who actually are there, they can see that food’s being distributed, or equipment, or schools are being built as part of our program.”

“We have an obligation to the members of the church who pay their tithes and offerings to make sure that is going to organizations or areas that will actually meet a need,” Bishop Waddell said. “The members of the church have a right to trust that it’s going to be managed and handled well and not just thrown at issues.”

This is the "bottleneck" issue I have been noting.  Do you think you have sufficiently taken it into account when evaluating/critiquing the Church's financial expenditures?

Quote

50 temples under construction

While humanitarian spending is increasing, so are all the other costs associated with operating the church.

“The (financial) needs of the church are increasing and accelerating,” Bishop Caussé said. For example, “There are 50 temples that have been announced that are either under construction or in preparation for construction right now, 50. That’s huge.”

The church has 167 operating temples, which come with operational and maintenance costs.

As of January 2026, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has 383 total temples in various stages. This includes 211 dedicated temples, with another 55 under construction, 2 awaiting groundbreaking, and 108 in planning or design.

Construction, operational and maintenance costs must be substantial.

Quote

Among the other missions of the church is missionary work, which includes funding 399 missions and the travel and health care expenses of 67,695 missionaries.

Education is another massive expenditure that must be backstopped. Bishop Caussé said the church’s five universities and colleges, which educate 90,000 students, operate at a cost of $1.5 billion a year paid for by tuition and tithing.

Previous statements by leaders show that tithing subsidizes well over half of the cost. That allows many students to graduate with little to no debt. Brigham Young University ranks No. 1 on the latest Forbes list of best value colleges.

Universities are only a portion of the church’s education costs. It pays for a Seminary and Institutes program that provides religious education to more than 800,000 teens and college students around the world. The effort includes 50,000 teachers, Bishop Caussé said.

The church operates 27 wheat storage facilities and funds nine refugee resettlement agencies in the United States. It also operates more than 100 bishops’ storehouses full of food and commodities to help church members around the world.

Family history work is growing and the church allocates resources to obtain records and produce searchable records, Bishop Caussé said. There is urgency, because some of the records are deteriorating.

All those growing and varied missions of the church are part of what its leaders call preparing for Christ’s Second Coming.

“When we talk about preparing for the Second Coming, that doesn’t mean we’re hoarding money so that we have it when the Second Coming takes place,” Bishop Waddell said. “In preparing for the Second Coming, we’re talking about building temples and providing places of worship and temples where people can receive sacred and exalting ordinances so we can gather Israel, we can do the missionary work in preparation for that day. And so, when we talk about preparing for it, that means all the work that’s going on now.”

That work could be jeopardized by an economic disaster like the Great Depression, he said.

“There will come a time when all of these resources, reserves, will be necessary,” he said. “We don’t know when, we don’t know exactly in what form, but you think of the (Bible story of the) seven fat years and the seven lean years, there’s so many examples in the scriptures that we strive to follow, whether it’s the parable of the talents and not to bury the talent. We saw what the Lord did to that individual. We want to be ready for any contingency.”

This seems pretty reasonable.

Quote

Why tithe when there is a surplus?

In the Bible and Latter-day Saint scripture, Jesus Christ commands church members to “pay one-tenth of all their interest annually” as “a standing law forever.” Church members believe scriptural promises that tithing provides spiritual and temporal blessings.

The bishopric said the law of tithing is a principle that works and, in addition to being a commandment, called it an expression of gratitude to the Lord.

“It’s very valid and current in our world,” Bishop Caussé said, “and we see it over generations, how the gospel is blessing families and their lives.”

Bishop Davies said paying tithing and fast offerings — the value of meals skipped during a 24-hour fast once a month — are spiritual commitments with promised blessings. Fast offering funds first stay within a ward or a branch to help people in the congregation. Excess funds are shared around the church.

He said the leaders of local congregations have the ability to obtain resources needed to help members of the church in their areas and reach out to strengthen others in their communities.

He and the other two bishops said they know it can be difficult for the poorest members to pay tithing, but all church leaders teach that all members should do so. They said no church member has to choose between eating and paying tithing.

Bishop Waddell said some are making an assumption that the church is bleeding the poor by having them pay tithing so it can amass reserves.

“It’s anything but,” he said. “They pay their tithing because it’s a commandment, and they are encouraged to, if they only have enough money to pay tithing or eat, ‘Pay your tithing and we’ll help with food,’ because the blessings that are associated with the payment of tithing will then be theirs, and they won’t go hungry, because we have the ability to assist them now.”

Bishop Caussé called it an act of faith to pay tithing and receive fast offering aid from other members. There is great concern that members all over the world be treated equally and fairly. 

“There’s always the church reaching out to those people, making sure that nobody will be set aside and everybody will benefit from the great blessing it is to be a member of the church,” he said.

Church leaders use tithing funds and fast offerings from established areas of the church to help finance less-established areas, the bishops said.

“In these emerging countries of the church, there is no way that the tithing, although members are very faithful … their tithing cannot cover all the expenditure, so it’s very important that members here in the United States and many other countries where the church has been established for a long time will contribute to it,” Bishop Caussé said. “There’s a great transfer of funds that happens, and it will be more and more in the future as the church develops in those countries.”

Bishop Caussé added, “In the center of everything that we do, is to care for those around us and to love our neighbor. And sometimes our neighbor can be in a faraway country.”

Bishop Davies said the number of church members who pay a full tithing is very close to the number who pay a fast offering.

We have covered a lot of these in this discussion.

Quote

Ensign Peaks Advisors

The church transfers surplus tithing each year to Ensign Peaks to invest for a rainy day.

“The church practices what it preaches in terms of setting aside and having budgets,” Bishop Davies said. “We never expend more than what we estimate will be coming in terms of tithes and offerings. And also by definition we set aside a certain amount every year in reserve for those times when there will be a need, and there will be a need in the future.”

Ensign Peak invests in a diverse portfolio. Some of the money is invested in U.S. equities, which are stocks and bonds. Previous filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission have shown that Ensign Peaks’ various funds hold stock in companies such as Apple, Home Depot and Alphabet.

But that is just a portion of the reserve fund.

“In addition to the reserves that are invested by Ensign Peak, we have reserves invested in real property and commercial real estate, residential real estate and in agriculture,” Bishop Waddell said.

That includes many large ranches and farms, which produce food to feed the hungry as well as provide long-term investment. The church recently bought a 15,000-acre, Dallas-area corn and sorghum farm with 10,000 head of cattle through one of its tax-paying agriculture companies, which include AgReserves Inc. and Farmland Reserve Inc. The property was listed for nearly $50 million, the Dallas Morning News reported on Thursday.

“They are one of the largest cattle ranch operators in the U.S.,” Icon Global founder Bernard Uechtritz told the newspaper.

The church’s ranch holdings are public.

For example, the church owns 670,000 acres of cattle ranches, farms and timberland in Florida. It started Deseret Ranches of Florida in 1950. It shared information about the ranch in a 1975 issue of the Ensign, one of the faith’s magazines, and on its Church Newsroom website in 2016. The Deseret News wrote about the ranches in 2013 and also covered the purchase of the timberland. It is public information that the church plans to develop some of the ranch property over the next 60 years.

The church invests in stocks so it can capture the value in economic boom times. It invests in agriculture, commercial real estate, residential real estate and other financial instruments to hedge against inflation during tougher times.

This sounds like a sound strategy, and one one grounded in the Brethren being "old, scared, lack vision, and are paralyzed by group think and tradition."

Quote

“The church has an attitude of being very conservative, very prudent,” Bishop Caussé said. “We really look in the long term. It’s not about having your reserves fluctuate all the time but looking into long-term care of those funds so they can be available to the church for accomplishing its mission. For example we have agricultural land that we look at with a 20- to 30-year perspective. It’s about how can we develop in a way that will be safe for the environment, that will be developing the land and the community, providing a great increase for the church or an interest of the church, but also preserving it for generations. That’s something that the church can do with its reserves that most businesses cannot do, because we are a church. It’s a different way of reasoning.”

The Church has some fairly unique objectives, I think.

Quote

Blessing the receiver and the giver

The church has not released financial reports since 1959, when it ran a deficit. The financial policies it now follows, never spending more than it takes in and setting aside some money in a reserve fund each year, were established in the 1970s, prior to the tenure of any of today’s church leaders. The late church leader President Gordon B. Hinckley explained the philosophy in the days after Sept. 11, 2001, which he called perilous times. “We cannot provide against every contingency,” he said, “but we can provide against many contingencies. Let the present situation remind us that this we should do.”

For the past four decades, media outlets have published newspaper series, magazine cover stories and books about the church’s property, investments and reserves. In the latest example two months ago, a man posted information online that he said contained documents his twin brother took from Ensign Peak before he resigned last year. The man filed a complaint with the IRS alleging the church should be forced to pay taxes on the returns earned by Ensign Peak because it is not spending its funds. The Washington Post later reported that the twins have had a falling out.

Independent tax experts have told multiple publications the IRS is unlikely to act on the man’s complaint because Ensign Peak is integral part of the church, legally known as an integrated auxiliary.

There have been no allegations of leaders enriching themselves, something noted in multiple reports on church finances. The church’s general authorities leave their professional careers to serve as church leaders full time often at significant financial sacrifice.

Bishop Caussé said the church’s work cannot be measured by dollars alone. He called the volunteer work of members an intangible, citing doctors and medical staff who train others and more.

“There are really two objectives of what we do,” he said. “The first one is to bless the receiver, and the other one is to bless the giver, and both are equally important. So, we always look at ‘Who is it that we can help,’ but also, ‘Can we provide enough opportunities for the members of the church to go and to reach out to others?’”

Interesting stuff.  And all this published to the world by the Church in a newspaper it owns.

Still, calls for "transparency" and "more" will always be with us.

From March 2025:

Church’s annual humanitarian aid increases to $1.45 billion

Quote

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints released details Tuesday about how it spent a significant part of the tithing, fast offerings and other donations it received in 2024.

The church spent $1.45 billion in humanitarian aid, welfare and other relief in 2024, according to a new report, “Caring For Those in Need: 2024 Summary of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

The church’s humanitarian aid expenditures have risen sharply in recent years, up from $906 million in 2021. That’s an increase of more than half a billion dollars — or 60%.

An 60% increase in five years seems pretty good.

March 2026:

Church spent $1.58 billion — exceeding previous year’s record — in caring for those in need in 2025

Quote

Following Jesus Christ’s teaching to “love thy neighbour as thyself” (Matthew 22:39), The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints expended $1.58 billion in 196 countries and territories in efforts to care for those in need in 2025.

This included 3,514 humanitarian projects, 37,063,409 pounds of food donated through bishops’ storehouses, 569 emergency relief projects and 7.4 million hours of volunteer work.

The Church’s Caring for Those in Need 2025 Summary was released Tuesday, March 10, on caringreport.ChurchofJesusChrist.org. This summary highlights humanitarian aid, volunteer service and welfare and self-reliance efforts worldwide.

President Dallin H. Oaks and his counselors, President Henry B. Eyring and President D. Todd Christofferson, wrote that the Church seeks to follow Jesus Christ “by ministering to the sick, feeding the hungry and comforting the afflicted.”
...

Global humanitarian projects

• 638 education projects
• 227 clean water, hygiene, and sanitation projects
• 569 emergency relief projects
• 703 health care projects
• 67 mobility projects
• 571 food security projects
• 176 projects serving homeless people

Welfare and Self-Reliance resources

• 1,956 Deseret Industries associates with job placements
• 82,927,370 pounds of materials recycled at Deseret Industries
• 524,505 pounds of clothing and shoes donated for humanitarian aid from Deseret Industries
• 2,412 addiction recovery meetings per week
• 32,773 new addiction recovery program participants
• 142,494 self-reliance group participants
• 7,825 jobs secured through Employment Services
• 44% of children improved nutritionally among children who were screened for malnutrition more than once
• 16,099 clients served by Family Services
• 19,243 self-reliance course participants who started a business
• 49,349 EnglishConnect participants
• 37,063,409 pounds of food donated through bishops’ storehouses, equating to around 30,886,174 meals
• 16,399 new PEF loans
• 78.5% of 2025 PEF graduates started a better job
• 910 Benson Scholarships awarded
• 31,398 wheelchairs donated

Member and missionary volunteers

• 7.4 million hours volunteered
• 8,267,105 Relief Society members worldwide who contributed to hours of ministering work
• 13,789 welfare and self-reliance missionaries
• 114,639 new JustServe users registered
• 38,597 new JustServe projects created

I am grateful and happy to be a Latter-day Saint.  I am grateful for all that the leaders do for us and our neighbors.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

40 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Not exactly. My point is that when you look at total resources (tithing plus investment income), the Church has waayyyyy more resources than it knows what to do with.

My sense is that the Church wants a very substantial backstop for its functions, and also has a substantial "bottleneck" issue, and is also very successful with its prudent investment and business efforts.

40 minutes ago, Analytics said:

This situation isn't a temporary bottleneck. It is endemic to the structure and culture of the Church. That is the problem.

Could you elaborate?

40 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Of course. Effectively deploying resources of this order of magnitude is incredibly tough. 

I am glad we agree on that.

40 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Would you agree with me that as a first step, the Church ought to tell the apostles how much money the church has?

I would not be opposed to that.  Candidly, I suspect the Q12 know quite a bit about how much money the Church has.

That said, the Q12 don't have direct stewardship over the temporal affairs of the Church.  The First Presidency and the Presiding Bishopric do.

You have mentioned this several times, but I've never quite understood why this point is so important to you.  Could you elaborate?

40 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Or do you think it can better deal with this issue by keeping the apostles in the dark regarding the resources at the Church's disposal?

If you decline to publicly post your Social Security Number, I suppose you could be accused of keeping others "in the dark," as if not disclosing information is per se nefarious.

Alternatively, if there is no duty to disclose, then I'm not sure there is a problem.

40 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Is it possible that the Church, aware of the foregoing pitfalls, is "focusing on development ... rather than relief"?

I think the Church is using the vast majority of its resources to make the size of its investment portfolio bigger and that as it continues to do that, this problem will get exponentially worse.

What a wonderful problem to have, though.

40 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

I think the Brethren, rather than being frozen due to being "old, scared, lack vision, and are paralyzed by group think and tradition," are instead quite cognizant of these risks.

I think their councils work exactly the way Bednar suggested. The junior apostle comes in to the meeting about the deposition of tithes. Along with the other apostles, he isn't told how much money the Church has. He isn't told what their investment income is, either. He is instructed that they "simply" do what they have always done--they set and manage towards a budget based on their projected tithing revenue, send extra money to Ensign Peak Advisors, and are not allowed to see what happens to it. I believe they are instructed to have reverence to this process. I believe a fundamental part of their process is that regardless of how many wonderful ideas they have about how the Church should deploy its resources, at the end of the day they have a budget equal to 90% of that year's tithing projection, so if they want to increase funding for project X by a dollar, they must reduce funding for something else by a dollar. According to everything I've seen and heard about the Council of the Deposition of tithes, that is how they operate.

Where have you "seen and heard" all of this?  Could you provide references?

40 minutes ago, Analytics said:

And they aren't allowed to question the process.

They aren't?  How do you know?

40 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Would you agree that the Church, well-known for deploying hundreds of yellow-shirted volunteers after catastropic storms and such (as well as many other service projects), is already doing fairly well at this?  

I think doing that is wonderful.

I sense a "but" coming.

40 minutes ago, Analytics said:

But

And there it is!

40 minutes ago, Analytics said:

it doesn't change the fact that the Church uses the vast majority of its financial resources to grow the size of its investment portfolio, which makes the problems you are talking about exponentially more difficult. 

Again, what a wonderful problem to have.

40 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Q: The Church does some amazingly good things with the 30% of its annual income that it deploys towards its mission. Did you take that into account when analyzing its transparency, the size of its reserves, and its internal decision making processes?

A: Yes. That matters, but it does not answer the whole governance question.

Doing substantial good with the deployed 30% is highly relevant to mission effectiveness. It shows that the organization is not inert, fraudulent, or incapable of impact.

But it does not by itself resolve questions about the remaining 70%, especially if that portion is repeatedly accumulated, not clearly tied to a reserve target or deployment plan, and not fully visible to relevant decision-makers or donors. Governance analysis looks at the whole system: impact, transparency, capital policy, oversight, opportunity cost, and whether donor resources are being used consistently with the organization’s mission and representations.

So the fair conclusion would be: the good work should be credited, but it does not immunize the reserve policy or governance structure from scrutiny.

FYI, I am glossing over all ChatGPT stuff.  

40 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

I am quite interested in your assessment of LaCorte's article/video, and how the Church fares when viewed in relation to it.

I know effectively deploying resources is tough, but I don't have any expertise in that area. 

And yet despite this acknowledgment of difficulty, and despite your lack of expertise/competency "in that area," you are advocating an "audacious goal that required a $100 Billion commitment over the next 5 years."

Or are you?  Are you vacillating between A) the Church spending more, and/or B) the Church taking in less (such as by revoking the Law of Tithing)?

Are we in agreement that the Church's humanitarian/philanthropic efforts face substantial logistical and practical constraints (which I have characterized as a "bottleneck")?

40 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

I don't think I've done any of that.  I think all churches and charities should be as financially wise as the Church has been.

Really? Do you think, for example, that the United Way should stop telling its board of directors how much money it has saved, and should start using 70% of its resources to increase the size of that fund regardless of how big it gets? 

I still don't understand this apparent preoccupation with whether or not the Q12 have direct information about how much money EPA has.

The First Presidency knows.  The Presiding Bishopric knows.  The Church Auditors likely know.  I think at this point the general public, or those portions of it who are interested, have a pretty solid idea that EPA holds huge amounts of money.  Why is it so vital, in your view, for the Q12 to have access to the particulars?  

40 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

What are your thoughts about the vetting "bottleneck" I have referenced?

I think those are totally valid issues, but it is ultimately a different question than the question of how big reserves should be, whether the Church's "fixed principle" is wise, and whether the church should be more transparent with the apostles, general membership, and society at large. 

I realize charitable endeavors are really difficult. Just like building a high-quality temple on-time and on-budget is difficult. Or choosing a new employee is difficult. Or just like anything else is difficult.

And I also believe that the leaders of the Church are genuinely good guys who aren't making themselves personally rich off of the thing. In fact, for reasons I can't discuss I could be more confident about this than you are.

What I do know about is how to think about reserve levels and how to evaluate whether the reserves are too small, too big, or broadly justifiable.

To what end do these questions take us? 

Some years ago I was watching an episode of Frasier which referenced "the Sultan of Brunei."  I looked him up on Wikipedia: "As of 2023, Hassanal Bolkiah is said to have a net worth of $50 billion."

I was idly curious about how this man accumulated so much wealth.  I also thought it odd that the leader of a country with a population of less than 1/2 million people could get so wealthy.  But it was just a passing thing.  

You want the information to be disclosed to the the apostles, general membership, and society at large . . . why?  As long as the Church is operating within the confines of the law, what is the value of conjecture about "how big reserves should be"? 

My surmise is that this is more than just an itch you want to scratch. 

Thanks,

-Smac