Analytics Posted May 5 Posted May 5 1 hour ago, smac97 said: "Trillions." Almost none of what you said above addresses my actual point, but one thing did. According to the 2020 article you quoted: “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” It doesn't follow this rule because of a bottleneck in how hard it is to responsibly deploy resources to fulfill its mission. It does this because it is the "fixed principle" that was established last century. A fixed principle like this makes sense for an individual who is bound to become disabled, retire, and/or die, and needs funds for those events. But according to widely agreed upon best principles of organizational finance, it does not make sense for an institution that is existing into perpetuity. We know that on November 30, 2019, the Church had $122.86 Billion in reserves. I did a projection with the following assumptions. In 2020, tithing and offering revenue was $7 billion, and increases by 5% per year Every year they deposit $1 billion of of tithes and offerings into the reserve fund The portfolio earns 7.4% per year (this comes from the portfolio's historical performance) With those assumptions, in 2025 the Reserve fund hit $200 billion. It did all of the wonderful things you've been talking about with $8 billion of tithes and offerings, and put an additional $14 billion into EPA, meaning 66% of its revenue went to grow the size of its investment portfolio. Assuming it continues to abide by the fixed principle, they maintain their commitment to never expend more than what they estimate will be coming in in tithes and offerings, and the investment portfolio continues to generate a relatively modest 7.4% investment return, in 2048 they will hit $1.068 trillion in assets, with a total income of $101 Billion, 74% of which will go to grow the size of their reserve fund. Then in 2057, something that is easily within our lifetimes, it will grow to $2.042 trillion. When that happens, its total income will be $183 billion, 77% of which will be going to increase the size of the Reserve fund. So yes. Trillions. You can assume that the Church will need this money for some pending emergency and that when the time comes it will become capable of successfully deploying it. But the fact remains that according to well-established principles for churches and non-profits, this is objectively called over-accumulation, under-deployment, and hoarding. If the Church's main mission is to accumulate a massive investment portfolio, this is success. But if the Church's main mission has something to do with perfecting the saints, redeeming the dead, spreading the gospel, and charity, then this is failure.
smac97 Posted May 5 Posted May 5 38 minutes ago, Analytics said: Almost none of what you said above addresses my actual point, but one thing did. According to the 2020 article you quoted: “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” It doesn't follow this rule because of a bottleneck in how hard it is to responsibly deploy resources to fulfill its mission. It does this because it is the "fixed principle" that was established last century. A fixed principle like this makes sense for an individual who is bound to become disabled, retire, and/or die, and needs funds for those events. But according to widely agreed upon best principles of organizational finance, it does not make sense for an institution that is existing into perpetuity. The "fixed principle" being keeping expenditures < estimated tithes/offerings? Under what circumstances do you think the Church should disregard the principle and spend more than it takes in? 38 minutes ago, Analytics said: We know that on November 30, 2019, the Church had $122.86 Billion in reserves. I did a projection with the following assumptions. In 2020, tithing and offering revenue was $7 billion, and increases by 5% per year Every year they deposit $1 billion of of tithes and offerings into the reserve fund The portfolio earns 7.4% per year (this comes from the portfolio's historical performance) With those assumptions, in 2025 the Reserve fund hit $200 billion. It did all of the wonderful things you've been talking about with $8 billion of tithes and offerings, and put an additional $14 billion into EPA, meaning 66% of its revenue went to grow the size of its investment portfolio. Assuming it continues to abide by the fixed principle, they maintain their commitment to never expend more than what they estimate will be coming in in tithes and offerings, and the investment portfolio continues to generate a relatively modest 7.4% investment return, in 2048 they will hit $1.068 trillion in assets, with a total income of $101 Billion, 74% of which will go to grow the size of their reserve fund. Then in 2057, something that is easily within our lifetimes, it will grow to $2.042 trillion. When that happens, its total income will be $183 billion, 77% of which will be going to increase the size of the Reserve fund. So yes. Trillions. You can assume that the Church will need this money for some pending emergency and that when the time comes it will become capable of successfully deploying it. But the fact remains that according to well-established principles for churches and non-profits, this is objectively called over-accumulation, under-deployment, and hoarding. You raise a serious question about how the Church handles its resources, and I respect the effort you put into the projection. You argue that the Church’s long-standing practice of living within tithing revenue while consistently setting aside reserves is outdated for a perpetual institution. You project, based on specific assumptions (5% annual revenue growth, $1 billion added to reserves yearly, and 7.4% portfolio returns), that the reserve fund could reach "trillions" within decades, and you conclude this constitutes “over-accumulation, under-deployment, and hoarding” that fails the Church’s core mission. My take is that the Church’s approach is rooted in modern revelation and scriptural patterns of provident living and preparation: Joseph storing grain for seven years of famine, the wise virgins keeping oil in their lamps, and the Lord’s counsel in Doctrine and Covenants about self-reliance and wise stewardship (see D&C 42, 58, 104, and 119). Leaders of the Church have described this “fixed principle” as a deliberate practice of living within means and maintaining reserves for unforeseen needs—disasters, temple construction, education, welfare, and global operations—without incurring debt. Your projection is mathematically consistent with the inputs you chose, but I think the assumptions underlying your projection should be considered. Revenue growth, investment returns, inflation, and actual spending are not guaranteed to follow a straight line over decades. The Church has significantly increased its visible deployment in recent years (humanitarian aid, self-reliance programs, temple building, education initiatives, and rapid disaster response). Reserves exist precisely so the Church can act swiftly when the Lord directs, without being constrained by immediate fundraising or borrowing. Whether the current balance between accumulation and deployment is the right one is ultimately a matter of faith for the Latter-day Saints relative to what they believe to be the Lord’s appointed stewards. We believe the Savior leads this Church through living prophets and apostles. The mission of the Church—perfecting the Saints, proclaiming the gospel, redeeming the dead, and caring for the poor and needy—is accomplished through both temporal preparation and spiritual power. Reserves are not an end in themselves; they are a tool to enable the work to roll forward steadily until the Savior returns. 38 minutes ago, Analytics said: If the Church's main mission is to accumulate a massive investment portfolio, this is success. But if the Church's main mission has something to do with perfecting the saints, redeeming the dead, spreading the gospel, and charity, then this is failure. You present what I see as a false dichotomy: Either the Church’s main mission is to accumulate a massive investment portfolio (success), or its mission is perfecting the Saints, redeeming the dead, spreading the gospel, and charity (failure). The Church has been crystal clear for nearly two centuries that its mission is the latter. Financial management is not the mission itself — it is a tool meant to facilitate the mission. Prudent reserves and careful stewardship allow the Church to: Build and maintain temples and meetinghouses worldwide without debt, Respond rapidly to disasters and humanitarian crises, Support education and self-reliance programs on a global scale, Sustain missionary work and welfare efforts even in difficult economic times. None of that is in conflict with the mission you listed — it makes the mission possible on the scale the Lord has commanded. Your reasoning also leaves no room for divine guidance. The scriptures are full of examples where God commanded preparations that looked excessive, wasteful, or even foolish to outside observers: Noah built an enormous ark for a flood no one believed was coming. Joseph in Egypt “hoarded” grain for seven years of plenty to survive seven years of famine. Nephi built a ship “after the manner which I shall show thee” while his brothers mocked him. In each case, faithful obedience to revelation — even when it defied conventional wisdom or “well-established principles” of the day — proved to be the wiser course. The Lord’s ways are higher than man’s (Isaiah 55:8–9). Also, the Deseret News article I quoted above indicates, to me, that the Presiding Bishopric know what they are doing. Thanks, -Smac 1
Analytics Posted May 5 Posted May 5 (edited) 2 hours ago, smac97 said: You have mentioned this several times, but I've never quite understood why this point is so important to you. Could you elaborate? It's an important principle of good corporate governorship. There is a ton of academic research into what makes an organization effective, and this research makes it into the real world in MBA (and SOA) curriculum. Why is it important that the people who deploy resources know what the resources are? GPT articulated the issue well: No. [What the church does] 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. 2 hours ago, smac97 said: Where have you "seen and heard" all of this? Could you provide references? My best reference that really explains the feel of it is Elder Bednar's conference address from Fall 2013: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2013/10/the-windows-of-heaven?lang=eng Other references to piece it together are Hinckley's comments, David Nielsen's insights, that 2020 Deseret News article, etc. 2 hours ago, smac97 said: They aren't? How do you know? Bednar said, "In that first council meeting I was impressed by the simplicity of the principles that guided our deliberations and decisions..." and later in the article he called this process, "the Lord's own way." I suppose in principle a young apostle could sat that they need to revisit this and that as an apostle on Disposition of Tithes committee, he felt that he really needed to understand the full picture of the Church's resources in order to fulfill his fiduciary duties, and that they should be open to spending more than that year's tithes and offerings if they felt confident could put it to good use. But really? I just can't imagine somebody questioning "the Lord's way" in front of 14 senior apostles and the Presiding Bishopric. 2 hours ago, smac97 said: 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)? I'm not advocating for any of that. I'm merely pointing out the fact that the Church's reserves are way too big by any objective measure of such things, that the Church is objectively guilty of hoarding, and that functionally, asset accumulation is the Church's dominant financial priority. That's my entire point. What should they do about it? I'd suggest four things: Be completely transparent with the apostles with their finances and show them complete consolidated financial statements of the entire Church. Be completely transparent with the general membership and show them the financial statements, too. Hire a consultant (Clayton Christensen?) to come in and give them best practices for setting the size of the reserves. Then figure out how to best deploy their resources for their mission. They don't have to do any of that, of course, but if they keep waiting for a revelation to tell them what to do then functionally, asset accumulation will continue to be their dominant financial priority. 2 hours ago, smac97 said: Are we in agreement that the Church's humanitarian/philanthropic efforts face substantial logistical and practical constraints (which I have characterized as a "bottleneck")? Probably. But from my point of view, that is off topic. What I'm talking about is how the apostles aren't allowed to know how much money the church has, aren't allowed to know what its investment income is, and how they "never expend more than what [they] estimate will be coming in terms of tithes and offerings." 2 hours ago, smac97 said: I still don't understand this apparent preoccupation with whether or not the Q12 have direct information about how much money EPA has. Because they can't fulfill their fiduciary duties without that information. 2 hours ago, smac97 said: My surmise is that this is more than just an itch you want to scratch. Not really. I think responsible individuals should weigh their own needs vs. the needs of the organization they are donating to before making donations. The Church refuses to give members the information they need in order to be good stewards of their resources that way, and instead claim that it is a commandment for them to donate blindly to them. Some people are okay with it. Some aren't. And others (e.g. Huntsman) will donate for a while, and will then figure out that their faith was misplaced. If the Church wants to avoid members feeling disillusioned and getting upset, they should be transparent with them in the first place. Edited May 5 by Analytics
Analytics Posted May 6 Posted May 6 (edited) 54 minutes ago, smac97 said: The "fixed principle" being keeping expenditures < estimated tithes/offerings? Under what circumstances do you think the Church should disregard the principle and spend more than it takes in? First, it should redefine as "what it takes in" to include investment income and not merely tithes and offerings. If it said it aimed to always deploy 90% of its total income--including investment income--I'd have no problem with it. Beyond that, there is a wide variety of things it could do, but it should be done strategically and not in compliance with a simplistic "fixed principle" that mathematically forces the majority of its income to go towards exponentially increasing the size of a bloated reserve fund, and is done in a way that allows its own fiduciaries the information necessary to fulfill their responsibilities in a responsible way. 54 minutes ago, smac97 said: Whether the current balance between accumulation and deployment is the right one is ultimately a matter of faith for the Latter-day Saints relative to what they believe to be the Lord’s appointed stewards. We believe the Savior leads this Church through living prophets and apostles. The mission of the Church—perfecting the Saints, proclaiming the gospel, redeeming the dead, and caring for the poor and needy—is accomplished through both temporal preparation and spiritual power. Reserves are not an end in themselves; they are a tool to enable the work to roll forward steadily until the Savior returns. But what's the point of having such a tool if it comes with a rule that it may never be used? In any event, you can have faith in whatever you want to, and there are worse things you could do with your money than give it to an organization that by any objective measure is going to hoard it. If that's what you want to do, knock yourself out. But don't be surprised when a ton of members eventually realize that they needed the money more than the Church did, and resent being manipulated into donating, and become bitter critics as a result. 54 minutes ago, smac97 said: You present what I see as a false dichotomy: Either the Church’s main mission is to accumulate a massive investment portfolio (success), or its mission is perfecting the Saints, redeeming the dead, spreading the gospel, and charity (failure). The Church has been crystal clear for nearly two centuries that its mission is the latter. Financial management is not the mission itself — it is a tool meant to facilitate the mission. Prudent reserves and careful stewardship allow the Church to: Build and maintain temples and meetinghouses worldwide without debt, Respond rapidly to disasters and humanitarian crises, Support education and self-reliance programs on a global scale, Sustain missionary work and welfare efforts even in difficult economic times. The emphasis here should be on prudent reserves. Grossly excessive reserves don't do anything to support those things. 54 minutes ago, smac97 said: None of that is in conflict with the mission you listed — it makes the mission possible on the scale the Lord has commanded. I thought the Lord commanded that "We never expend more than what we estimate will be coming in terms of tithes and offerings." If the real mission somehow involves deploying the vast majority of its annual income on growing its reserves so that someday it can completely change course and do it on a scale order of magnitudes greater than what it's doing now, it should clarify that. This line of thought contradicts your bottleneck hypothesis in a huge way, but if this were the real goal, they should be transparent about it. Edited May 6 by Analytics
smac97 Posted May 6 Posted May 6 (edited) 1 hour ago, Analytics said: Quote Quote Would you agree with me that as a first step, the Church ought to tell the apostles how much money the church has? You have mentioned this several times, but I've never quite understood why this point is so important to you. Could you elaborate? It's an important principle of good corporate governorship. Corporations have apostles? Called by revelation? To act as "Special Witnesses of Jesus Christ"? Moreover, the Q12 are part of the Council on the Disposition of the Tithes. Once a portion of the tithes is given to EPA, is it your position that those monies are still within the Council? If so, could you elaborate on how you came to that conclusion? If the Presiding Bishopric lacked access to EPA particulars, I could see your point. And if the Q12 had plenary access to EPA data, I would not care either way, as it seems to fall within the discretion of the Presiding High Priest to make such determinations. I just don't see this as a moral imperative. 1 hour ago, Analytics said: Quote 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)? I'm not advocating for any of that. Well, okay. I appreciate the clarification. 1 hour ago, Analytics said: I'm merely pointing out the fact that the Church's reserves are way too big by any objective measure of such things, that the Church is objectively guilty of hoarding, and that functionally, asset accumulation is the Church's dominant financial priority. That's my entire point. What should they do about it? I'd suggest four things: Be completely transparent with the apostles with their finances and show them complete consolidated financial statements of the entire Church. Be completely transparent with the general membership and show them the financial statements, too. Hire a consultant (Clayton Christensen?) to come in and give them best practices for setting the size of the reserves. Then figure out how to best deploy their resources for their mission. They don't have to do any of that, of course, but if they keep waiting for a revelation to tell them what to do then functionally, asset accumulation will continue to be their dominant financial priority. Okay. 1 hour ago, Analytics said: Quote Are we in agreement that the Church's humanitarian/philanthropic efforts face substantial logistical and practical constraints (which I have characterized as a "bottleneck")? Probably. That seems like a breakthrough of sorts. 1 hour ago, Analytics said: But from my point of view, that is off topic. What I'm talking about is how the apostles aren't allowed to know how much money the church has, aren't allowed to know what its investment income is, and how they "never expend more than what [they] estimate will be coming in terms of tithes and offerings." The Q70 apparently don't have access to EPA data, either. Why do you think that is? Would it possibly be outside their stewardship? What, then, about the Q12's stewardship? From the Church website: Quorum of the Twelve Apostles Quote Apostle was the title Jesus gave to the Twelve whom He chose and ordained to be His closest followers and supporters1. Apostles are chosen to be special witnesses of Jesus Christ2. Just as Jesus Christ called and sent His Apostles forth to represent Him, today’s Apostles are given the role to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ throughout the world. The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles is the second-highest leadership body of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the First Presidency being the highest). Jesus Christ calls Apostles to represent Him in our day just as He did in the Bible. They leave behind their regular work lives and devote their life to full-time Church service. They oversee the growth of the global Church, and they travel the world to share God’s love with His children and invite all to come unto Christ, learn, and follow Him. A quorum is a group of individuals who are given priesthood authority and responsibility to do God’s work. The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles includes twelve everyday men with the same divine responsibility as Peter, James, John, and the other early Apostles. Presiding Bishopric Quote The Presiding Bishopric is a council of three men who work under the direction of the First Presidency. They manage such matters as humanitarian aid, welfare programs, tithing and fast offerings, physical facilities, and the organization of membership records, among others. They also travel frequently to minister to Church members around the world. In addition, the Presiding Bishopric presides over the Aaronic Priesthood in the Church. Because most Aaronic Priesthood holders are young men, members of the Presiding Bishopric work with the Young Men General Presidency to support the young men of the Church in their priesthood duties. The First Presidency calls the Presiding Bishop and chooses two men to serve as counselors. All three members of the Presiding Bishopric hold the title of bishop. For many years, members of the Presiding Bishopric served for life; today, Presiding Bishoprics serve for shorter terms. The first bishop of the Church was called in 1831, one year after the Church’s organization. The bishop’s primary responsibilities included managing the Church’s finances and property, caring for the poor, and storing surplus goods for times of need. The Presiding Bishopric now performs similar duties for the Church as a whole. In addition, local bishops care for the poor and needy and preside over the Aaronic Priesthood in their congregations. It seems like you are shoehorning, via generalized notions of corporate governance (with no substantive accommodation for the religious and claimed revelatory nature of how the Church is structured and governed) the Q12 into a space that is more properly the province of the First Presidency and the Presiding Bishopric. Do you disagree? 1 hour ago, Analytics said: Quote I still don't understand this apparent preoccupation with whether or not the Q12 have direct information about how much money EPA has. Because they can't fulfill their fiduciary duties without that information. What "fiduciary duties" do you have in mind here? And how is the Q12's fulfillment of those duties impaired by not having plenary access to EPA data? 1 hour ago, Analytics said: Quote My surmise is that this is more than just an itch you want to scratch. Not really. I think responsible individuals should weigh their own needs vs. the needs of the organization they are donating to before making donations. So do I. I think there are particularized considerations unique to Latter-day Saints and tithes. 1 hour ago, Analytics said: The Church refuses to give members the information they need in order to be good stewards of their resources that way, and instead claim that it is a commandment for them to donate blindly to them. CFR, please re: the "claim that it is a commandment for them to donate blindly to them." 1 hour ago, Analytics said: Some people are okay with it. Some aren't. Wouldn't that be the case in pretty much any circumstance? 1 hour ago, Analytics said: And others (e.g. Huntsman) will donate for a while, and will then figure out that their faith was misplaced. Presuppositions and value judgments play a role in such discussions, to be sure. I think Huntsman's lawsuit was pretextual. 1 hour ago, Analytics said: If the Church wants to avoid members feeling disillusioned and getting upset, they should be transparent with them in the first place. You are speaking with the intent of helping the Church avoid such disillusionment? Thanks, -Smac Edited May 6 by smac97 1
bluebell Posted May 6 Posted May 6 21 minutes ago, Analytics said: I think responsible individuals should weigh their own needs vs. the needs of the organization they are donating to before making donations. The Church refuses to give members the information they need in order to be good stewards of their resources that way, and instead claim that it is a commandment for them to donate blindly to them. Some people are okay with it. Some aren't. And others (e.g. Huntsman) will donate for a while, and will then figure out that their faith was misplaced. If the Church wants to avoid members feeling disillusioned and getting upset, they should be transparent with them in the first place. All the bolded statements are statements of belief, right? They are subjective and are largely informed by your personal feelings about the church and interpretations of the doctrines it teaches rather than being supported by evidence. They seem like examples of belief bias, which are hard to square with your earlier statements about how your personal biases are not impacting your conclusions on this topic. 4
Analytics Posted May 6 Posted May 6 (edited) 2 hours ago, smac97 said: Corporations have apostles? Called by revelation? To act as "Special Witnesses of Jesus Christ"? Moreover, the Q12 are part of the Council on the Disposition of the Tithes. Once a portion of the tithes is given to EPA, is it your position that those monies are still within the Council? If so, could you elaborate on how you came to that conclusion? If the Presiding Bishopric lacked access to EPA particulars, I could see your point. And if the Q12 had plenary access to EPA data, I would not care either way, as it seems to fall within the discretion of the Presiding High Priest to make such determinations. I just don't see this as a moral imperative. A couple of points. First, to the extent that any of the dollars in Ensign Peak are actual tithing dollars, I would think that per D&C 120, their disposition continues to fall under the purview of that Council. As it is, the actual mechanics of this emphasize my point that accumulating money is functionally the Church's highest priority. Think about how this works. The top leaders of the Church first decide that the full $15 billion of investment earnings will be reinvested to turn the $200 billion reserve fund in the beginning of the year into a $215 billion reserve fund by the end of the year. This is mathematically equivalent to saying "we never expend more than what we estimate will be coming in terms of tithes and offerings." That is the most sacred ground rule of the entire thing. And these top leaders might peel off a layer of tithing to be added to that, so it becomes a $216 billion reserve fund by the end of the year. After that, they go to the full Council on the Disposition of tithes and say the budget for the year is $8 billion of the $9 billion of tithing that is expected to come in. At that point, if Elder U wants to increase the missionary program's budget by $1 million, he can argue that the million can come from reducing the genealogy department's budget by a million, or the temple construction budget or the education budget or the humanitarian budget. In principle it can come from anywhere except from the $16 billion that the higher-ups have already decided must be invested in growing the reserve fund. Functionally, this process makes it clear that growing the reserve fund is the most sacred allocation. If it worked the way I'm suggesting, Elder U would be able to argue that the million dollars he wants for the missionary program could come from the increase of the reserves rather than another Church mission, and that the Church would be okay if its year-end reserve was only $215.999 billion rather than a full $216 billion. Ultimately I don't really care. I'm just trying to answer your questions and explain to you why accumulating money sure appears like it is the First Presidency's and Presiding Bishopric's everlasting goal. And this seems to illustrate a point made by the Evangelical Council of Financial Accountability, which requires under it standards that "Every organization shall provide a copy of its current financial statements upon written request [to anybody who asks to see them]." When explaining why, they say: Quote Financial transparency is not only an accepted, expected, and required form of accountability in society at large, but it also represents the even higher standard of openness for Christ-centered organizations. It may be true that public disclosure of financial information is required, in part, to protect the donor public. While this is the reason most often given to justify governmental regulation, the reputation of Christ-centered ministries in general is at stake. Public disclosure protects Christian ministry from the danger of claiming ownership of God’s gifts. It also protects us from the temptation to acquire assets as our lasting goal. Of course you aren't bound by this, but it does illustrate the general principles I'm talking about. More to the point, they seem downright prophetic in their claim that organizations without transparency are at risk of having reserves that are too large. 2 hours ago, smac97 said: CFR, please re: the "claim that it is a commandment for them to donate blindly to them." Can you clarify? Are you asking me to provide references that tithing is a commandment, or are you asking me to provide references that the Church isn't transparent? Edited May 6 by Analytics
Analytics Posted May 6 Posted May 6 1 hour ago, bluebell said: Quote I think responsible individuals should weigh their own needs vs. the needs of the organization they are donating to before making donations. The Church refuses to give members the information they need in order to be good stewards of their resources that way, and instead claim that it is a commandment for them to donate blindly to them. Some people are okay with it. Some aren't. And others (e.g. Huntsman) will donate for a while, and will then figure out that their faith was misplaced. If the Church wants to avoid members feeling disillusioned and getting upset, they should be transparent with them in the first place. All the bolded statements are statements of belief, right? They are subjective and are largely informed by your personal feelings about the church and interpretations of the doctrines it teaches rather than being supported by evidence. They seem like examples of belief bias, which are hard to square with your earlier statements about how your personal biases are not impacting your conclusions on this topic. It is an objective fact that the Church doesn't provide members with financial statements that allow them to see how their donations are or would be put to use. It is an objective fact that the Church says paying tithing is a commandment. It is an objective fact that the Church says they should pay tithing even though they aren't given any real information on what the Church does with its donations. It's a value judgement that you should evaluate how organizations spend money before donating, but it is a widely held one. For example: Quote Look for Clear Financial Information When reviewing websites, you should be able to easily find financial information. If the organization’s financial statements aren’t available in the “About Us” section or another prominent area, proceed with caution. Look for complete IRS Form 990s (where applicable) or audited financial statements, rather than brief summaries that provide limited detail. (Houses of worship and their affiliated entities are not required to file an IRS Form 990.) While many factors should be considered when choosing charities to support, financial transparency is a key component of trust.
webbles Posted May 6 Posted May 6 Talking about the holdings in EPA, the Widows Mite site has discovered that in the last quarter, EPA liquidated almost $6 billion in stocks (about 9% of their total stock holdings). No idea on why (could be allocating to bonds, moving to different managers to hide the size, the church needed the cash, etc). But it is interesting based on this conversation. 4
smac97 Posted May 6 Posted May 6 33 minutes ago, Analytics said: A couple of points. First, to the extent that any of the dollars in Ensign Peak are actual tithing dollars, I would think that per D&C 120, their disposition continues to fall under the purview of that Council. I would not take that view, but I see how you could. So we're left with a discretionary decision. 33 minutes ago, Analytics said: As it is, the actual mechanics of this emphasize my point that accumulating money is functionally the Church's highest priority. I don't think so. The vast majority of the Church's time and effort go into preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ and exhorting the Saints to live according to it. The Saints themselves don't think this way. And the First Presidency and the Presiding Bishopric have delegates the bulk of "accumulating money" concerns to EPA. And even now, the vast majority of the Saints don't even know what EPA is. 33 minutes ago, Analytics said: Ultimately I don't really care. Hmm. Then why spend years and hundreds of posts talking about it? 33 minutes ago, Analytics said: Quote CFR, please re: the "claim that it is a commandment for them to donate blindly to them." Can you clarify? You attributed to the Church (its leaders) the "claim that it is a commandment for them to donate blindly to them." I am asking that you provide a reference for this representation. 33 minutes ago, Analytics said: Are you asking me to provide references that tithing is a commandment, or are you asking me to provide references that the Church isn't transparent? CFR for this: "The Church ... claim{s} that it is a commandment for {the Latter-day Saints} to donate blindly to them." Given that your declaration earlier today that your "assessment on these issues is in fact purely clinical and empirical," I am requesting a clinical and empirical reference for the "claim" you are attributing to the Church. I think we both know you can't satisfy the CFR. The thing is, if you admit that you fabricated this ugly and plainly false claim, then that tends to undermine your claimed objectivity ("purely clinical and empirical"). Alternatively, if you dodge the CFR about this ugly and plainly false claim, then you not only maintain the falsehood, you compound it and what it exposes, which is that your assessment of the Church is not "purely clinical and empirical." You sort of painted yourself into a corner here. I've been trying to apply the principles of the "Habits of a Peacemaker" book. Habit Three is "Assume the Best About People." Defaulting to assuming good faith and moral luck in others’ lives reduces defensiveness and opens the door to understanding rather than condemnation. Also Habit Ten: "Embrace the Discomfort of Non-closure." I'm working on this. Thanks, -Smac 1
longview Posted May 6 Posted May 6 5 minutes ago, webbles said: Talking about the holdings in EPA, the Widows Mite site has discovered that in the last quarter, EPA liquidated almost $6 billion in stocks (about 9% of their total stock holdings). No idea on why (could be allocating to bonds, moving to different managers to hide the size, the church needed the cash, etc). But it is interesting based on this conversation. Or they could be liquidating stock holdings that appear "bearish" to them and positioning to purchase a future "better value" acquisitions. This is called leveraging.
smac97 Posted May 6 Posted May 6 8 minutes ago, webbles said: Talking about the holdings in EPA, the Widows Mite site has discovered that in the last quarter, EPA liquidated almost $6 billion in stocks (about 9% of their total stock holdings). No idea on why (could be allocating to bonds, moving to different managers to hide the size, the church needed the cash, etc). But it is interesting based on this conversation. This guy is saying it was $7.7 billion (13.75% of EPA's portfolio). He is speculating that perhaps some of this money is going to go to a development near Kansas City: For my part, I think we may do a disservice when we publicly speculate about these sorts of things. I think we need to let the Brethren guide things in their time and way. And the splash image? Oi... Thanks, -Smac 1
Analytics Posted May 6 Posted May 6 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Hmm. Then why spend years and hundreds of posts talking about it? I think it is an interesting case study. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: You attributed to the Church (its leaders) the "claim that it is a commandment for them to donate blindly to them." I am asking that you provide a reference for this representation. CFR for this: "The Church ... claim{s} that it is a commandment for {the Latter-day Saints} to donate blindly to them." I apologize for the way I said that. I meant to imply that tithing is a commandment, and the Church doesn't meet generally accepted transparency standards. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: I've been trying to apply the principles of the "Habits of a Peacemaker" book. Habit Three is "Assume the Best About People." Defaulting to assuming good faith and moral luck in others’ lives reduces defensiveness and opens the door to understanding rather than condemnation. Also Habit Ten: "Embrace the Discomfort of Non-closure." I appreciate your efforts with this and for telling us about it. 3
bluebell Posted May 7 Posted May 7 On 5/5/2026 at 8:46 PM, Analytics said: It is an objective fact that the Church doesn't provide members with financial statements that allow them to see how their donations are or would be put to use. It is an objective fact that the Church says paying tithing is a commandment. It is an objective fact that the Church says they should pay tithing even though they aren't given any real information on what the Church does with its donations. It's a value judgement that you should evaluate how organizations spend money before donating, but it is a widely held one. For example: It's an objective fact that the church doesn't provide members with financial statements, but it is your belief that members need financial statements from the church "in order to be good stewards of their resources". It is an objective fact that the church teaches that God commands us to pay tithing, but it is your personal interpretation that the church claims that God has commanded members "to donate blindly to them." You don't seem to be able to separate your personal beliefs and interpretations from objective facts (or at least, you don't seem to notice when you conflate the two), which is why it's hard to believe that your personal biases are not impacting your conclusions on this topic, despite you stating that they aren't. 3
smac97 Posted May 7 Posted May 7 (edited) 1 hour ago, bluebell said: It's an objective fact that the church doesn't provide members with financial statements, but it is your belief that members need financial statements from the church "in order to be good stewards of their resources". It is an objective fact that the church teaches that God commands us to pay tithing, but it is your personal interpretation that the church claims that God has commanded members "to donate blindly to them." You don't seem to be able to separate your personal beliefs and interpretations from objective facts (or at least, you don't seem to notice when you conflate the two), which is why it's hard to believe that your personal biases are not impacting your conclusions on this topic, despite you stating that they aren't. Habit Two of "Habits of a Peacemaker": Quote Habit Two: Seek Real Learning Core Idea: We generate knowledge collectively through dialogue, evidence, criticism, and revision—not in isolation or echo chambers. Peacemakers actively seek accurate information and resist manipulation by dopamine-driven platforms, foreign actors, and heuristics. Main Points: Knowledge creation is a social process (Newton standing on giants; Newton/Hooke correspondence). Modern barriers: dopamine addiction to phones/social media, outrage-based algorithms, foreign disinformation, catchphrases/heuristics. “Illusory truth” effect: repetition makes falsehoods feel true. Solution: deliberate real learning—long-form reading, primary sources, critical thinking, inoculation against manipulation. Practical Takeaways: Recognize manipulation: dopamine hits, outrage algorithms, foreign actors. Break the cycle: limit phone use, seek long-form sources, use primary data. When someone uses a catchphrase, ask clarifying questions instead of reacting. Treat every conversation as an opportunity for collective knowledge-building. I note with interest the author's cautions to gather information by A) avoiding "isolation or echo chambers" B) generating knowledge "collectively through dialogue, evidence, criticism, and revision, but also C) take caution against relying on "phones/social media, outrage-based algorithms, foreign disinformation." The last bit about "outrage-based algorithms" was, to me, intriguing, as it seemed like a departure from Hollis's broad-and-generalized-principles approach. From the the book: Quote Today ... our barriers to real learning are far more complex. They include our own bodies’ chemical reactions to stimuli, teams of doctorate-level psychologists and mathematicians who understand our bodies and brains better than we do, and nefarious foreign actors and companies intentionally trying to manipulate us. The good news is this: once we know people are trying to manipulate us, we will understand the obstacles in our way and we can do something about them. ... In his important book Outrage Machine: How Tech Amplifies Discontent, Disrupts Democracy—And What We Can Do about It, technologist Tobias Rose-Stockwell explains: Quote For the first time, the majority of information we consume as a species is controlled by algorithms built to capture our emotional attention. As a result, we hear more angry voices shouting fearful opinions and see more threats and frightening news simply because these are the stories most likely to engage us. This engagement is profitable for everyone involved: producers, journalists, creators, politicians, and, of course, the platforms themselves. In other words, fearful opinions, frightening news, stories of threats to you and your family—these create the same dopamine hits in our brains as much less nefarious things like “likes” to our photos. So, we return to them. We consume them more and more. In time, we come to see the world not as a complex system with equally complex problems in need of sophisticated solutions. Instead: Quote When we are shown what’s wrong in the world, we feel the desire to correct it. We want to share these transgressions with our networks. If we see more problems, these problems must have perpetrators who are responsible for them. These enemies are now everywhere, and we feel the need to call them out. When we share a news story that gets us enraged or engaged, we receive rewards—and dopamine hits—as our friends and others interact with the story. They make comments. They offer likes. They share it with their friends. The algorithms running our feeds offer us even more similar stories. We share those, and the cycle starts over again. ... Cable news is no different. Turn on any news network, and, within minutes, you will see an eye-catching “Breaking News!” alert. If new, important events were happening at the pace cable news channels wanted us to believe they are, the world would have ended decades ago. The reality is that those stations need to keep as many eyeballs as they can on the screens for as long as possible. Their entire business model depends on it. ... Cable news has learned that their primary tools for keeping people tuned in are breaking news and anger. The breaking news alerts are strategically timed to keep viewers tuned just at the moment they might be inclined to leave. ... Because there is so little actual news, the channels must look for other methods of filling the airtime and keeping us engaged. They have turned to anger to do this. Talking heads pick the most divisive topics of the day, then offer their opinions on those topics in a way they know will be provocative. They provide us either bombastic opinions with which we are already inclined to agree, or they point out to us threats from which we do not dare turn away our eyes. ... Every time we pick up our phones or turn on a news station, we need to remind ourselves what those teams of psychologists and mathematicians are doing. They are not trying to pass on real information. They are not interested in our learning anything or becoming better citizens or being peacemakers. Whether we like it or not, they are trying to manipulate us, from the moment we let our eyes fall upon any screen in our lives. They are a formidable opponent in our efforts to engage in real learning. I have, for some time now, surmised that some critics of the Church are trying to manipulate their listeners to foment outrage and anger and fear. Against the Church and its leaders. Much of this is directed less to the general public and more toward the Latter-day Saints. A brief sampling of YouTube thumbnails: "They provide us either bombastic opinions with which we are already inclined to agree, or they point out to us threats from which we do not dare turn away our eyes." "{D}opamine-driven platforms..." This message board has helped me avoid "echo chambers," discern just how frequently detractors of our faith are attempting to stoke outrage and fear (as opposed to, day, presenting fair-minded and even-handed critiques of the Church and its policies and doctrines and such), and pursue what Hollis proposes is the "solution" to all this: "deliberate real learning—long-form reading, primary sources, critical thinking, inoculation against manipulation." Some years ago, just before the Covid lockdown, I went to lunch with a friend who had moved out of my ward and, I later found out, had turned rather hostile toward the Church. It turned out to be a very long conversation, several hours, mostly him venting his spleen about how terrible the Church was. It was sort of like a "CES Letter" highlight reel. A lot of pent-up anger. A pretty substantial "The Church lied to be" vibe. Quite a few "Did you know about {insert troubling store about an institutional policy and/or a member behaving badly}"-style questions. He concluded by declaring that the only way for a person to remain in the Church is to either be profoundly ignorant (of all the terrible things about the Church) or profoundly evil (via indifference to all the terrible things about the Church). I asked him if he had ever read anything by Daniel Peterson, and he said he had never heard of him. I asked him if he had ever visited Jeff Lindsay's website, and he had never heard of Jeff either. William Hamblin? Jack Welch? John Tvedtnes? Matt Roper? John Sorenson? Richard Bushman? John Gee? He had never heard of any of these people, let alone read anything written by them. In hindsight, I think elements of "Habit Two" were very much in play. My surmise is that my friend, who is still my friend, had succumbed to "outrage-based" social media stuff. I say this because the issues he had raised were a potpourri of grievances that had no particular rhyme or reason except that they were part of carefully and deliberately curated "gish gallop"-style compilations like the CES Letter and "Why I Left" narratives and ExMo Reddit / Exmormon.org talking points. And more to the point, my friend had nothing more than a superficial grasp of these topics. He pretty clearly hadn't studied any of this with any rigor or fairmindedness, as he did not recognize any Latter-day Saint scholars who had addressed so many of this concerns, and he could not answer questions about them, and he was way too conclusory about them. And this, in turn, implicates Habit One: "Intellectual Humility and Reframing": Quote 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 think my friend didn't know nearly as much as he thought he did about the Church. The Dunning-Kruger Effect. That, combined with the "outrage-based" social media content and his (apparently) corollary failure to do the things that Hollis recommends ("deliberate real learning—long-form reading, primary sources, critical thinking, inoculation against manipulation"), has had a very big impact on his life. So again, I am grateful for this board, including the critics who voice their views about the Church. I want to hear what they have to say. I want to consistently vet my knowledge and understanding and perspective and presuppositions regarding the Restored Gospel and the Church that houses it. As Hugh Nibley more succinctly put it: “We need more anti-Mormon books. They keep us on our toes.” Thanks, -Smac Edited May 7 by smac97 2
bluebell Posted May 7 Posted May 7 55 minutes ago, smac97 said: Habit Two of "Habits of a Peacemaker": I note with interest the author's cautions to gather information by A) avoiding "isolation or echo chambers" B) generating knowledge "collectively through dialogue, evidence, criticism, and revision, but also C) take caution against relying on "phones/social media, outrage-based algorithms, foreign disinformation." The last bit about "outrage-based algorithms" was, to me, intriguing, as it seemed like a departure from Hollis's broad-and-generalized-principles approach. From the the book: I have, for some time now, surmised that some critics of the Church are trying to manipulate their listeners to foment outrage and anger and fear. Against the Church and its leaders. Much of this is directed less to the general public and more toward the Latter-day Saints. A brief sampling of YouTube thumbnails: "They provide us either bombastic opinions with which we are already inclined to agree, or they point out to us threats from which we do not dare turn away our eyes." "{D}opamine-driven platforms..." This message board has helped me avoid "echo chambers," discern just how frequently detractors of our faith are attempting to stoke outrage and fear (as opposed to, day, presenting fair-minded and even-handed critiques of the Church and its policies and doctrines and such), and pursue what Hollis proposes is the "solution" to all this: "deliberate real learning—long-form reading, primary sources, critical thinking, inoculation against manipulation." Some years ago, just before the Covid lockdown, I went to lunch with a friend who had moved out of my ward and, I later found out, had turned rather hostile toward the Church. It turned out to be a very long conversation, several hours, mostly him venting his spleen about how terrible the Church was. It was sort of like a "CES Letter" highlight reel. A lot of pent-up anger. A pretty substantial "The Church lied to be" vibe. Quite a few "Did you know about {insert troubling store about an institutional policy and/or a member behaving badly}"-style questions. He concluded by declaring that the only way for a person to remain in the Church is to either be profoundly ignorant (of all the terrible things about the Church) or profoundly evil (via indifference to all the terrible things about the Church). I asked him if he had ever read anything by Daniel Peterson, and he said he had never heard of him. I asked him if he had ever visited Jeff Lindsay's website, and he had never heard of Jeff either. William Hamblin? Jack Welch? John Tvedtnes? Matt Roper? John Sorenson? Richard Bushman? John Gee? He had never heard of any of these people, let alone read anything written by them. In hindsight, I think elements of "Habit Two" were very much in play. My surmise is that my friend, who is still my friend, had succumbed to "outrage-based" social media stuff. I say this because the issues he had raised were a potpourri of grievances that had no particular rhyme or reason except that they were part of carefully and deliberately curated "gish gallop"-style compilations like the CES Letter and "Why I Left" narratives and ExMo Reddit / Exmormon.org talking points. And more to the point, my friend had nothing more than a superficial grasp of these topics. He pretty clearly hadn't studied any of this with any rigor or fairmindedness, as he did not recognize any Latter-day Saint scholars who had addressed so many of this concerns, and he could not answer questions about them, and he was way too conclusory about them. And this, in turn, implicates Habit One: "Intellectual Humility and Reframing": I think my friend didn't know nearly as much as he thought he did about the Church. The Dunning-Kruger Effect. That, combined with the "outrage-based" social media content and his (apparently) corollary failure to do the things that Hollis recommends ("deliberate real learning—long-form reading, primary sources, critical thinking, inoculation against manipulation"), has had a very big impact on his life. So again, I am grateful for this board, including the critics who voice their views about the Church. I want to hear what they have to say. I want to consistently vet my knowledge and understanding and perspective and presuppositions regarding the Restored Gospel and the Church that houses it. As Hugh Nibley more succinctly put it: “We need more anti-Mormon books. They keep us on our toes.” Thanks, -Smac Agreed. It’s why I post here and never cared to be a part of the faithful only-latter day saint message boards that have popped up. It’s boring. We all have biases and echo chambers are incredibly detrimental to reason. 2
smac97 Posted May 7 Posted May 7 51 minutes ago, bluebell said: Agreed. It’s why I post here and never cared to be a part of the faithful only-latter day saint message boards that have popped up. It’s boring. Message boards can indeed become "echo chambers," and I also wonder if they end up getting political. I certainly want to have venues where expressions of faith and affirmations thereof are the order of the day. That's what Sunday meetings are for, and General Conference, and attending the temple. I think Latter-day Saints ought not to cloister themselves, but we should also maintain faith-affirming places and venues and events. Debate and critique is better left for boards such as this one. Quote We all have biases and echo chambers are incredibly detrimental to reason. From the "Habits" book: Quote One important habit peacemakers master is freeing themselves from that endless cycle and instead pursuing what the masses of humanity dreamed about for so long. They engage in activities like prayer, meditations, walks, fishing, reading long-form works like books (that includes listening to them), talking with loved ones, going to church, journaling, practicing mindfulness, enjoying peaceful music, serving others, observing nature, visiting museums, or learning from lectures available in person or online. Many of those activities may seem boring to you. In fact, I would fully expect them to be if you, like almost everyone else, have trained your brain to expect a release of dopamine from your devices every few minutes. But if you can reimmerse yourself into the joyous waters this world has to offer without a screen, you can free yourself from technology addiction and begin to engage in real learning—about yourself and the world around you. Try it for short periods if you must. Go for a walk without your phone and note what you see and enjoy. Force yourself to go an evening without a phone in reach and watch in surprise at how your evening changes. Good stuff, this. Thanks, -Smac 3
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now