IRS "Whistleblower" David A. Nielsen to Appear on 60 Minutes

[webbles]

5 hours ago, JAHS said:

Isn't there a difference between a organization that is a charity and one that is a charitable organization? It seems to me that the Church is not a charity in the strictest sense, it is a religion that participates in charitable activities.  Examples of Charities are here. When you call an organization a charity you expect that all or most of the money is used for charity. This can't be so with a religion that is involved in many other church related activities. The question that is hard to answer is, how much should the church spend on charitable activities?

US tax law defines charitable organization to include quite a few things:

Quote

The exempt purposes set forth in Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and the prevention of cruelty to children or animals.  The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erection or maintenance of public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-purposes

I think most people equate charity with "relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged" but in US tax law, a charitable organization doesn't have to do any of that.  They just have to do one of the other things: "advancement of religion", "advancement of education or science", etc.

I think the argument that Nielsen is going for is that the EPA doesn't do "relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged" (charity) and so it shouldn't be a 501(c)(3) charitable organization.  And if it isn't a charitable organization, then it should be taxed.  But EPA does participate in the "advancement of religion" as everything it does is under the direction of a religious organization (the Church) and is for its benefit.  It doesn't handle money of any other organization and it follows orders from the Church (see the SEC complaint).  And that's probably why the IRS will not do anything.  I don't think arguing about how the money has only gone to for-profit organizations will help him because the Church has a religious reason for doing that.  For example, with the mall, it was stated multiple times that the Church was doing it to improve the community around its headquarters.  That sounds very much like "advancement of religion".

[Hamilton Porter]

The Aussie version must've been a hit so they decided to do an American sequel.

Edited May 16 by Hamilton Porter

[Analytics]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

There seem to be three "angles" here:

• Angle 1: The Church allegedly violated tax laws (the province of the IRS) by, as Nielsen put it, "directing funds built from member donations to bail out business with ties to the church" (this is the crux of Nielsen's 2019 complaint to the IRS).

• Angle 2: The Church committed civil fraud by bailing out Beneficial Life and investing in City Creek (this is the substance of Huntsman's lawsuit).

• Angle 3: The Church allegedly violate securities laws (the province of the SEC) by failing to properly comply with reporting requirements to the SEC.

Angle 1 and Angle 2 are interconnected, as they both deal with Beneficial Life and City Creek.  AFAICS, there is no nexus between Nielsen's 2019 complaint to the IRS and and EPA's compliance fine (Angle 3).

Angle 1 seems more or less dead in the water.  The IRS has, AFAICS, taken no action on Nielsen's complaint despite the passage of 3.5 years.  And every expert who has spoken publicly about City Creek and Beneficial Life has concluded that the chances of the IRS taking any action against the Church are slim to none.  So Nielsen's 2019 complaint seems to be going nowhere fast.

Angle 2 is not faring much better.  Huntsman's lawsuit was dismissed via summary judgment.  Nielsen tried to help it along by submitting a supporting affidavit, but the federal judge found that it did nothing to shore up Huntsman's claims.

Angle 3 was resolved months ago, with the Church paying a small fine for its and EPA's purported failure to fully comply with SEC reporting requirements.  That's fine by me.  If the Church messes up, it ought to take its legal lumps like anyone else.

My point is this: I don't think that Angle 3 has anything to do with Angle 1 or Angle 2, with David Nielsen and his 2019 complaint to the IRS.  

"Angle 1" isn't an accurate summary of Nielsen's IRS complaint, and "Angle 2" isn't an accurate summary of Huntsman's lawsuit.

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

The SEC had no qualms with the substantive points raised by Nielsen (that is, the Church spending $ on Beneficial Life and City Creek).  Instead, the SEC found fault with how the Church complied with reporting requirements.  As a result, the Church paid a (relatively) small fine (as to compliance with SEC reporting requirements), altered how EPA handles its reporting to the SEC, and the matter was resolved.  Months ago. 

And yet here Nielsen is, continuing to bang away about Beneficial Life and City Creek (Angle 1 and Angle 2), this time by attempting to tie it to the SEC issue (Angle 3).  From above: 

And here:

I question this.  Back in 2019, his narrative was that "his employment with the organization had become 'unworkable' because his wife and children had left the church and wanted him to follow."

Now, the supposed "breaking point" that told him he "was in the wrong place" was the MormonLeaks stuff.  And now, in 2023, five years later (and conveniently months after the SEC's fine), Nielsen is publishing - apparently for the first time - hearsay statements from a bigwig at EPA about how its tax status would be imperiled.

Wow.  Quite the bombshell revelation, that. 

Funny how he did not include it in his complaint to the IRS. 

Funny how it didn't make the news in 2019 regarding his complaint to the IRS.

Funny how he didn't mention anything about SEC compliance in his August 2021 affidavit in support of James Huntsman.

Funny how he didn't report these (hearsay) statements until after the SEC fine became public knowledge. 

Funny how these newly-recollected (hearsay) statements create a connection, albeit a fairly tenuous one, between his IRS complaint and the SEC compliance issue.

Funny how in 2019 he said he quit because his wife and children had left the Church, but in 2023, the "breaking point" was the SEC issue.

I am certainly open to correction about this.  I don't recall a single news item back in 2019 in which Nielsen raised any issue about SEC compliance concerns, and yet now in 2023 he is calling this his "breaking point."

Well, yes, he is.  His entire narrative against the Church was, until last night, about how it spends its money.

• "David Nielsen ... claimed the misuse of billions of dollars in tithes — $100 billion to be exact."
• "{EPA} is not an example for how we should be."
• "{The Church} violated its tax exempt status by directing funds built from member donations to bail out business with ties to the church."
• "Nielsen told 60 Minutes the firm used false records and statements to appear as a charity, while stockpiling money and misleading the church members."
• "'I thought we were going to change the world,' Nielsen said. "And we just grew the bank account.'"
• "'You could solve big problems with $100 billion,' Nielsen told 60 Minutes."
• "'{C}haritable organizations can't bail out for-profit businesses and maintain their charitable status.'"
• "Nielsen resigned in 2019 and filed a whistleblower complaint with the IRS alleging that Ensign Peak violated its tax-exempt status by moving money to for-profit businesses.  It wasn't until 2021 that Nielsen heard from investigators, but they weren't from the IRS, they were from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission."

This sure sounds like he's faulting the Church for handling its money in the ways he things it should.

I said he isn't "merely complaining that the Church "wasn't handling its money in the way he thinks it should."

Surely you don't think this list represents everything Nielsen has ever said on the issue, do you? For example, if you read the Executive Summary of the Letter to an IRS Director, you'll see that his first explicit grievance is:

      EPA has made 0 religious, educational, or charitable distributions in 22 years.

An elevator-speech summary of his argument is this: EPA isn't a public charity because  it makes literally zero religious, educational or charitable contributions, ever. Since it never makes any religious or charitable donations, it can't be a public charity, and if it isn't a public charity, it can't be an integrated auxiliary of the Church. Thus it is actually a private foundation and should be taxed as such.

That's his argument. His primary beef isn't that he thinks it is wrong or illegal for EPA to make investments. His primary beef is that that is the only thing it does and that it literally spends zero on anything of a charitable, religious, or educational nature. 

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

It does not.

I invite you to reconsider this.  A "group" is, by definition, more than "one."

My point is that that isn't the defining characteristic of a hedge fund. Hedge funds can use commingled funds, or they can be "a fund of one."  

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Oh, well, that's good to know.  And the State would have "bailed out" the policyholders by using moneys originating from the forced taxation of the residents of the State of Utah.

That's not quite true, either. The members of the Guarantee Association would have bailed them out, not tax payers. But as we now know, Beneficial Life's issue was more of a liquidity issue and a shortage of surplus than actual insolvency. So even if it would have gone into receivership, nobody would have needed to bail it out.

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

The Church, rather than dumping this burden on taxpayers, kept the burden for itself.  And this, in your view, is a bad thing?

The Church supporting the obligations made by the companies it owns is a fine thing. I thought I made that clear.

But when EPA spends 100% of its assets for commercial purposes and 0% of its assets for charitable, religious, or educational purposes, is it really a public charity in its own right? That's the issue.

If EPA is really somehow an integrated auxiliary of the Church despite the fact that it isn't a public charity, we are still left with the awkward situation that the Church spends the majority of the its annual income to increase the size of its for-profit investment empire and the minority of its annual income for all other religious, charitable, and educational purposes, combined. At what point is it a business with a religious holding rather than a church with a business holding? That is a legitimate question at this point, despite the fact that the IRS won't address it. 

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

I agree.  So Nielsen asking the IRS to strip the Church of its tax-exempt status for doing "the right thing" seems a bit . . . odd.

That's because he isn't asking the IRS to strip the Church of its tax-exempt status for doing the right thing.

He is asking for EPA to be classified as a private foundation because it doesn't engage in any charitable work whatsoever.

 

Edited May 16 by Analytics

[JAHS]

15 hours ago, webbles said:

US tax law defines charitable organization to include quite a few things:

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-purposes

I think most people equate charity with "relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged" but in US tax law, a charitable organization doesn't have to do any of that.  They just have to do one of the other things: "advancement of religion", "advancement of education or science", etc.

I think the argument that Nielsen is going for is that the EPA doesn't do "relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged" (charity) and so it shouldn't be a 501(c)(3) charitable organization.  And if it isn't a charitable organization, then it should be taxed.  But EPA does participate in the "advancement of religion" as everything it does is under the direction of a religious organization (the Church) and is for its benefit.  It doesn't handle money of any other organization and it follows orders from the Church (see the SEC complaint).  And that's probably why the IRS will not do anything.  I don't think arguing about how the money has only gone to for-profit organizations will help him because the Church has a religious reason for doing that.  For example, with the mall, it was stated multiple times that the Church was doing it to improve the community around its headquarters.  That sounds very much like "advancement of religion".

Nielson appears to have an unreasonable limited view of what a charitable organization should be and do.

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Nielson appears to have an unreasonable limited view of what a charitable organization should be and do.

Yes.  These legal efforts against the Church (by Nielsen, by Huntsman, by Gaddy, etc.) are all overwhelmingly predicated far less on what the Church has actually done and said, and far more on the personal opinions and expectations of the litigants regarding what the Church should do.

Gaddy and her entourage of co-plaintiffs seem to be not very sophisticated in matters of business and financial management, but I would have expected more of Nielsen (a money manager) and Huntsman (the son of a self-made billionaire industrialist).  And yet both of their efforts expose a fairly facile, to the point of naively ignorant, perspective on institutional wealth.

Most folks are, I think, accustomed to receiving a salary.  For folks who have substantial discretionary income, the smart ones are always looking for opportunities to invest and grow.  The Church would be derelict in its stewardship obligations if it did what Nielsen, Gaddy, Huntsman, etc. apparently expect it to do, which is to proverbially stuff the wealth of the Church under a mattress.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Church would be derelict in its stewardship obligations if it did what Nielsen, Gaddy, Huntsman, etc. apparently expect it to do, which is to proverbially stuff the wealth of the Church under a mattress.

Where in the world did you get the idea that Nielsen wants to "proverbially stuff the wealth of the Church under a mattress"? 

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Where in the world did you get the idea that Nielsen wants to "proverbially stuff the wealth of the Church under a mattress"? 

By reading his public statements:

• "David Nielsen ... claimed the misuse of billions of dollars in tithes — $100 billion to be exact."
• "{EPA} is not an example for how we should be."
• "{The Church} violated its tax exempt status by directing funds built from member donations to bail out business with ties to the church."
• "Nielsen told 60 Minutes the firm used false records and statements to appear as a charity, while stockpiling money and misleading the church members."
• "'I thought we were going to change the world,' Nielsen said. "And we just grew the bank account.'"
• "'You could solve big problems with $100 billion,' Nielsen told 60 Minutes."
• "'{C}haritable organizations can't bail out for-profit businesses and maintain their charitable status.'"

He is complaining about how the Church is using its resources.  Stuff like "not an example for how we should be" and "we were going to change the world" and "you could solve big problems" are value judgments.  By him.  Against the Church.  Regarding how it uses its funds.

I think Nielsen recognizes that the legal particulars regarding whether EPA is an "integrated auxiliary" and such is not going to excite much antipathy against the Church, as theses complexities go over most of our heads (this article does a good job of summarizing things).  So he goes for the "sanctimonious indignation" angle.  "{EPA} is not an example for how we should be."  "'I thought we were going to change the world.'"  "'You could solve big problems with $100 billion.'"

I think that most reasonably-informed members understand and appreciate that the Church is doing what it has been teaching us to do: live within its means, set aside reserve funds, plan for the future, etc.

I also think that most reasonably-informed members understand and appreciate that setting aside reserve funds and planning for the future does not mean simply stuffing money in a metaphorical mattress, but instead involves prudent use and investment of such funds.  The Parable of the Talents not only lauds such prudent use by the "good and faithful servant{s}," but also condemns the servant who buried the talent given to him and did nothing with it.

I also think that 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.  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, and so on.

I also think that most reasonably-informed members understand and appreciate that the Brethren are not getting rich.  Their living allowances are static, uniform and fairly modest given the amount of work they do, the skills involved, and the alternatives available to so many of them.

Nielsen isn't aiming for "reasonably-informed members," I think.  I think he is aiming for the general public, who have only passing familiarity with the Church.  I think he wants to embarrass the Church, to make it look bad, and to foment ill will against it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

By reading his public statements:

• "David Nielsen ... claimed the misuse of billions of dollars in tithes — $100 billion to be exact."
• "{EPA} is not an example for how we should be."
• "{The Church} violated its tax exempt status by directing funds built from member donations to bail out business with ties to the church."
• "Nielsen told 60 Minutes the firm used false records and statements to appear as a charity, while stockpiling money and misleading the church members."
• "'I thought we were going to change the world,' Nielsen said. "And we just grew the bank account.'"
• "'You could solve big problems with $100 billion,' Nielsen told 60 Minutes."
• "'{C}haritable organizations can't bail out for-profit businesses and maintain their charitable status.'"

He is complaining about how the Church is using its resources.

How does any of that mean he wants the Church to proverbially stuff its wealth under a mattress? Do you understand what that metaphor means?

[JAHS]

11 minutes ago, Analytics said:

How does any of that mean he wants the Church to proverbially stuff its wealth under a mattress? Do you understand what that metaphor means?

The metaphor can have different meanings but it certainly sounds like nielsen believes that is what the church is doing. In other words hoarding money without using it for the purposes he thinks they should use it.  The difference is that the money is not just hiding under a mattress, it is growing and earning interest and value over time and according to the Church it is being used for purposes the Church regards as necessary. Nielsen doesn't agree with what the church is doing with it so in his opinion it is doing nothing with it.

[Harry T. Clark]

I guess the Church can do whatever it wants with the funds it receives from the members as per the tithing slip we get.  How about a little disclosure, though?  I think it is disrespectful to not have a more detailed report on how the funds are used.  Having the accountant get up in conference and merely say trust us doesn't pass muster.  The members will understand and continue on, and it wouldn't hurt giving a little justification to the members on the fence as to why and where the money is spent or invested.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

How does any of that mean he wants the Church to proverbially stuff its wealth under a mattress? Do you understand what that metaphor means?

Yes, I understand it.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

"Hiding money under the mattress" is a classic way of describing someone who is thrifty. However, economists argue that literally putting money in your mattress would cause you to lose money in the long run. 

Note this is speaking "literally," whereas I referenced the money-in-the-mattress thing proverbially. 

And here:

Quote

A new survey of more than 1,800 people from the American Express Spending and Savings Tracker, however, found that 43% of Americans keep their savings in cash. An alarming 53% of those cash-hoarders "plan to hide bills in a secret location at home."
...
Unless you have extenuating circumstances (although the only ones that come to mind immediately are running a drug cartel or operating as an international spy), avoiding the bank is usually a bad idea.
...

{M}oney in your pocket — or dresser drawer, or safe under your desk — loses value as it sits there. Even the less-than-1% interest it would earn in a standard savings account is better than the 0% you'd get by keeping your money at home.

Inflation alone historically rises about 3% a year, and while there are various options to keep your money ahead of the curve (like investing in even the most conservative mutual funds or investing your retirement savings), keeping your money under the mattress is the quickest way for your wealth to essentially go backwards.

It looks like Nielsen's view is that the Church doing anything with its means except to spend it or park it in a bank is terrible.  Criminal, even.  Worthy of severe punishment by the government (with a sweet sweet "finder's fee" to Nielsen, BTW).

The Church has the means to spend billions each year for religious, philanthropic, humanitarian, charitable, educational, etc. purposes.  It has the means to perpetuate its existence and pursue its religious mandates (which, though you do not respect or value, we do).  I am glad the Church can do these things.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 16 by smac97

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said:

I guess the Church can do whatever it wants with the funds it receives from the members as per the tithing slip we get. 

Well, no.  The Brethren can't do "whatever" they want with sacred funds.

11 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said:

How about a little disclosure, though? 

Could you clarify what you mean by "a little disclosure"?

11 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said:

I think it is disrespectful to not have a more detailed report on how the funds are used. 

What would "a more detailed report" look like?

11 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said:

Having the accountant get up in conference and merely say trust us doesn't pass muster. 

Could you elaborate?

11 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said:

The members will understand and continue on, and it wouldn't hurt giving a little justification to the members on the fence as to why and where the money is spent or invested.

Perhaps.  And perhaps there are countervailing reasons for the Church's status quo.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JAHS]

26 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said:

I guess the Church can do whatever it wants with the funds it receives from the members as per the tithing slip we get.  How about a little disclosure, though?  I think it is disrespectful to not have a more detailed report on how the funds are used.  Having the accountant get up in conference and merely say trust us doesn't pass muster.  The members will understand and continue on, and it wouldn't hurt giving a little justification to the members on the fence as to why and where the money is spent or invested.

Not really sure what good that would do. Most members can already see what the church does with the money generally speaking and are satisfied with that. I don't see how knowing the minute details would really make any difference. We pay tithing because that is what God wants us to do; not just what the church leaders want us to do. In my opinion many of those who insist on more transparency are critics of the church looking for more ammunition to disparage the Church and leaders. Fence sitters usually have other concerns that will eventually cause them to fall over the fence if they can't regain the faith and testimony they once had(or never had) of the truthfulness of the gospel and inspired leadership. I don't see how knowing exactly what the church does with every dollar is going to be a deciding factor for them leaving. 

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes, I understand it.  See, e.g., here:

Note this is speaking "literally," whereas I referenced the money-in-the-mattress thing proverbially. 

And here:

None of that has anything to do with Nielsen's point. He doesn't want the church to stuff money under a mattress in any sense of the metaphor. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

It looks like Nielsen's view is that the Church doing anything with its means except to spend it or park it in a bank is terrible. 

No, that isn't his view, and it isn't what his view looks like. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Criminal, even.

No, he never said nor implied that, either.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

  Worthy of severe punishment by the government (with a sweet sweet "finder's fee" to Nielsen, BTW).

No, he never said nor implied that, either. 

Why do you argue against these silly straw men rather than his actual arguments? 

 

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

Not really sure what good that would do. Most members can already see what the church does with the money generally speaking and are satisfied with that.

I disagree. Most members are under the impression that the Church uses most of its income for chapels, temples, BYU, seminary and institute, the missionary program, genealogy, and charity. However, they are wrong. The Church uses most of its money to increase the size of the so-called rainy day fund. It uses more money every year to increase the size of the rainy day fund than all of those other things put together.

I don't think most members see this.

 

[JAHS]

7 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I disagree. Most members are under the impression that the Church uses most of its income for chapels, temples, BYU, seminary and institute, the missionary program, genealogy, and charity. However, they are wrong. The Church uses most of its money to increase the size of the so-called rainy day fund. It uses more money every year to increase the size of the rainy day fund than all of those other things put together.

I don't think most members see this.

 

CFR: "uses most of its money to increase the size of the so-called rainy day fund"

If they did most of them would approve of the activity and would make sense to them and I am sure more of them know this than you think. Once a member pays tithing it no longer belongs to them. In fact the right attitude is that it never belonged to them in the first place; they are just giving it back to God. If they did not donate with this attitude then they should not have donated it in the first place. If they suddenly decide they don't trust the Church with it then they should stop donating it, but not expect to be repaid what they already donated.

[Analytics]

9 minutes ago, JAHS said:

CFR: "uses most of its money to increase the size of the so-called rainy day fund"

See the Letter to an IRS Director.

The Church's for-profit investments and businesses are now worth about $150 billion, which generates about $7 billion a year in income. Tithing is about another $7 billion a year in income. In total, that's about $14 billion a year in total income. The church's total expenses are about $6 billion. Thus, about 43% of the church's income goes towards its religious, educational, and charitable missions, and the remaining 57% goes towards increasing the size of its for-profit investment portfolio.

[JAHS]

16 minutes ago, Analytics said:

See the Letter to an IRS Director.

The Church's for-profit investments and businesses are now worth about $150 billion, which generates about $7 billion a year in income. Tithing is about another $7 billion a year in income. In total, that's about $14 billion a year in total income. The church's total expenses are about $6 billion. Thus, about 43% of the church's income goes towards its religious, educational, and charitable missions, and the remaining 57% goes towards increasing the size of its for-profit investment portfolio.

You use the word "about" a lot in that response and the letter is too large and confusing to even read it much less make any sense of it. What about the rest of my post? Most members are going to trust what church leaders are doing with the donations regardless of how it is used. 

[Analytics]

7 minutes ago, JAHS said:

You use the word "about" a lot in that response and the letter is too large and confusing to even read it much less make any sense of it.

There are only seven people on the planet authorized to know the church’s full financials (the First Presidency, the Presiding Bishopric, and the Controller). Like the apostles, I don’t have access to detailed financial statements, so I make highly educated guesses.

Part of the education backing those guesses are the details in the report I cited.

7 minutes ago, JAHS said:

What about the rest of my post? Most members are going to trust what church leaders are doing with the donations regardless of how it is used. 

Yea, I pretty much agree that is how many members see it.

Edited May 16 by Analytics

[Hamilton Porter]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

that

I'm 100% certain, "I thought we were going to change the world," was done for dramatic effect. He started with good intentions, but is just an attention whore now.

[Thinking]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Well, no.  The Brethren can't do "whatever" they want with sacred funds.

I fear you are playing semantics. "In furtherance of its overall mission, the Church may shift donations from any designated use to other uses, at its sole discretion."

Although I'm not in the meetings, I'm confident that the Brethren are the ones who decide when it is appropriate to move sacred funds (donations) to other uses. I suspect you don't like the phrase "whatever they want." Perhaps you would have preferred "whatever they choose." However it is said, funds can be moved.

[Teancum]

On 5/15/2023 at 12:54 PM, teddyaware said:

n consideration of the fact that there are abundant prophecies in the scriptures that forewarn there are going to be constant wars throughout the world, widespread cataclysmic destructions on a unprecedented scale, financial catastrophes throughout the world (including an eventual worldwide economic collapse), prior to the Second Coming, why is it “absurd” to believe that the Lord would want his Church to avoid sure financial bondage by amassing as much capital and financial wherewithal as possible in preparation for tribulations of the last days that are surely going to descend upon a world fully ripened in iniquity?

How will $180 billion in non operating assets that are primarily invested in tings that will become worthless in such a situation help you.  And this could go to a trillion by 2040.  I guess the so called Church of Jesus Christ is really more interested in amassing wealth.  And you true believers are all quite fine with it.

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Quote

Well, no.  The Brethren can't do "whatever" they want with sacred funds.

I fear you are playing semantics.

I don't think so.

11 minutes ago, Thinking said:

"In furtherance of its overall mission, the Church may shift donations from any designated use to other uses, at its sole discretion."

Yes.  "In furtherance of its overall mission" being the operative phrasing.

We don't need to speculate.  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.  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, and so on.

And these controls seem to be working.  I feel reasonably confident in stating that "the Brethren can't do 'whatever' they want with sacred funds" because they are demonstrably good stewards.

11 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Although I'm not in the meetings, I'm confident that the Brethren are the ones who decide when it is appropriate to move sacred funds (donations) to other uses. I suspect you don't like the phrase "whatever they want." Perhaps you would have preferred "whatever they choose." However it is said, funds can be moved.

"In furtherance of {the Church's} overall mission," yes.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

On 5/15/2023 at 1:10 PM, JAHS said:

Isn't there a difference between a organization that is a charity and one that is a charitable organization? It seems to me that the Church is not a charity in the strictest sense, it is a religion that participates in charitable activities.  Examples of Charities are here. When you call an organization a charity you expect that all or most of the money is used for charity. This can't be so with a religion that is involved in many other church related activities. The question that is hard to answer is, how much should the church spend on charitable activities?

Well sure. The Church is well, a church. I get that it has operating expenses and other missions it is seeking to fulfill.  And as I have stated numerous times, such an organization needs a hefty reserve fund to protect against a rainy day.  Guidelines are aout 3x annul operating revenue.   The Church has 30x annual operating needs in non operating liquid assets.  It could fund its annual operating expenses into perpetuity without on cent of tithing.  So yea IMO the church should be more charitable and focus on humanitarian needs beyond its current and recent $1 billion a year.  A wonderous sum.  But a paltry amount based on the assets it has.

Edited May 16 by Teancum

[Teancum]

On 5/15/2023 at 1:19 PM, freedad said:

Did anyone notice at the end of the report the reporter mentioned that whistleblowers are entitled to 30% of whatever the government collects from the church?  This puts Mr. Nielson in a place to collect billions of dollars for himself.  This puts perspective on why he coming forward.  Does he plan to "change the world" with all the potential money he collects?

Nice ad hominem attack.