Op-Ed: Perspective: What’s behind American media’s unhealthy fixation on ‘Mormons, Inc.’?

[smac97]

Deseret News: Perspective: What’s behind American media’s unhealthy fixation on ‘Mormons, Inc.’?

Quote

In a broadcast that aired Sunday, the CBS television program “60 Minutes” recycled four-year-old complaints about how The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints handles its finances. 

This is a fair critique.  

Quote

Most of the questions raised already have rather banal answers, which we discuss below.

But plain responses tend not to capture attention and drive TV ratings, especially during “sweeps” periods (like this month).

Also a fair critique.  

Quote

But the media’s unusual and enduring fascination with Latter-day Saint finances has extended over the better part of a century, begging the question: Is the goal of these similar media treatments to elucidate a misunderstood faith tradition or instead to further stoke public misgivings? 

The latter, I think.

Quote

Riveting the journalistic eye

As a teenager, George Albert Smith worked to help support his family. While on a surveying job with Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad, some harmful combination of desert dust and a scorching glare of summer sun damaged his vision, causing permanent impairment in his left eye. 

Years later, Smith served as president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints during the faith’s centennial celebration of the early Mormon pioneers arriving in Utah on July 21, 1947. 

In conjunction with the anniversary, Time Magazine ran a cover story depicting then-President Smith with his injured eye fixated on a pile of dollar sign-leafed sugar beets in front of the temple with rows of gold plates in the background to drive home the point: What you need to know about Latter-days Saints isn’t the core tenets of their faith, but instead their sideways eye for amassing wealth. 

And yet, it was just a few decades earlier the church had been on the verge of financial collapse — threatened with bankruptcy and the confiscation of holdings by the federal government. And a few decades into its second hundred years, the church still wouldn’t have the funds to complete its main office building on Temple Square. 

If any other institution had turned its finances around in such a way as the Church has done, I think it would be lauded to the heavens.

Quote

Yet by the time the church’s sesquicentennial rolled around in 1997, 50 years after Time’s first cover story, the magazine reverted to the same tropes, printing “Mormons, Inc.” in bold font across the magazine’s iconic cover. The “true great trek” of early Latter-day Saint leaders, the piece argued, was to build a wealthy “empire.”

It’s a plot twist seemingly too good to resist: a church which claims to care for the poor and follow Jesus — the same Jesus who taught it’s harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God than a camel to fit through the eye of a needle — is secretly more interested in accumulating wealth and power. Any other explanations for the hard-fought financial stability of the faith is met with remarkably little journalistic curiosity.

Another important issue that seems to merit "little journalistic curiosity": Nobody is getting rich from the Church, including those who run it and who have access to its vast resources.  As I noted in January:

Quote

I have previously presented a number of factors that I think onlookers should take into account when evaluating the Church's financial behaviors:

1. The Brethren Ain't Getting Rich: Neither the Brethren nor anybody else is getting wealthy off the wealth of Ensign Peak's investments.  The Brethren could be living large by diverting some of the funds they oversee, as we see the leaders of some religious groups doing (Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, Creflo Dollar, Joel Osteen, etc.).  But they don't.  They aren't in it for the money.  They aren't in it to enrich themselves or anyone else.

2. Ensign Peak Foregoes Problematic Investments: Per the above article, Ensign Peak could invest in industries which, though often very lucrative, can be viewed as morally problematic according to the Church.  But it doesn't.

3. The Church's Increasing Charitable/Philanthropic/Religious Expenditures: Per this 2020 Deseret News article, the Church "{has} doubled its humanitarian spending over the past five years and now annually provides nearly $1 billion in combined humanitarian and welfare aid" and "'we believe {these expenditures} are going to increase fast,' {Bishop Caussé} said."  Per the article, the Church is also is supporting 30,000 congregations, 200 temples, educational opportunities for hundreds of thousands of students, food, clothing and shelter for hundreds of thousands of people a year.

4. Weathering Hard Economic Times: From Bishop Waddell in the Presiding Bishopric in 2020 (from the above article) : "“There will be future downturns.  How extensive, how dramatic we don’t know. But one of the comments we made to the Journal was that if that were to happen, because of the reserves being carefully watched over, protected and wisely handled, we won’t have to stop missionary work, we won’t have to stop maintaining buildings and building temples, we won’t have to stop humanitarian and welfare work, we won’t have to stop education work. What the journalist (wrote) was that we won’t have to stop missionary work, period. Well, there’s more than that.” 

From Bishop Caussé, also in 2020: "Most of the growth, I have to say, is because we are right now in the longest period of prosperity in the United States that has ever been recorded, and this is creating that surge of financial markets.  We are just beneficiaries of it.” 

Fastforward to BlackRock issuing warnings in December 2022: "The global economy has already exited a four-decade era of stable growth and inflation to enter a period of heightened instability — and the new regime of increased unpredictability is here to stay."

5. Prudence in Charitable Giving: There seems to be, in the minds of some, the notion that solving most or all social ills involves just mindlessly throwing money at them, typically money forcibly taken by the government and diverted to politically-connected and -privileged programs and groups, and regardless of the actual effectiveness of such programs/groups. 

 

Quote

In 2012, Bloomberg Businessweek slapped cartoon bubbles over a piece of religious art to depict deity instructing Latter-day founder Joseph Smith, “And thou shalt build a shopping mall, buy stock in Burger King … that shall be largely exempt from the frustration of tax.” That same year, Harper’s magazine claimed, with a rhetorical bravado of inverse proportion to the evidence presented, that Latter-day Saints have an “ethos of accumulation that makes so-called prosperity Gospel seem listless by comparison.”

And then there’s Sunday’s “60 minutes” segment. The same themes play out. The church has money. It prefers not to disclose every dollar publicly. Ergo, something nefarious must be taking place.

Yep.  

Quote

Along the way, little effort goes into helping viewers appreciate how the faith tradition actually uses its financial resources.

A story in search of evidence

This same story plays out every few decades, despite the church’s commendable self-reliance and efficiency of its humanitarian efforts. Living stipends for full-time church leaders are estimated to be significantly less than the salary of a member of U.S Congress, and hundreds of thousands of dollars less than leaders of large public and private universities or comparable nonprofit organizations.

Some critics on this board find this irrelevant.  I find it highly relevant.

Quote

Lost in this all, once again, are the actual purposes and uses of funds as members and leaders of the church understand them.

Imagine if this became an object of interest among news media. Investigative programs might dig deep into what humanitarian projects the church funds and examine the lives impacted. Or perhaps they’d explore the extensive educational and welfare efforts measurably helping to lift people from poverty across the globe.

But like the many treatments of church finances before it, CBS rehashed the so-called whistleblower’s inference that the church’s funds were “never used” for charitable purposes.

That’s quite a claim. 

Yet in a program taking up such a serious allegation, it was striking that the wide range of ways these funds are perpetually used by the church to fulfill its mission was never really explored at much length — nor were the legal merits of the whistleblower’s claims examined with much scrutiny.

Journalistic indifference was on display.

Quote

Instead, insinuations were made that the IRS was somehow failing to act by not investigating the church out of fear of “political” repercussions. The prospect that maybe, just maybe, the church could actually be fully compliant with IRS requirements for tax-exemption was less interesting.

Again, it’s “sweeps” season, and CBS needs eyeballs. 

I wonder if it worked.

Quote

But what about the truth?

Even by the whistleblower’s admission, the church spends billions each year on its charitable causes. And since Ensign Peak, the church’s investment arm, is part of the totality of the church’s organization — functioning legally as an incorporated auxiliary of the church — the insinuation the church doesn’t disburse its funds is simply disingenuous. This idea depends on the claim that the church’s investment fund is entirely separate from the church — it’s not, legally or otherwise.

This is, I think, a point that Nielsen (and our critics on this board) really want to avoid.

Quote

As the whistleblower himself says during the CBS program, church reserve investments are more like a 401(k) (long-term savings), and the other funds are more like a checking account for ongoing operational expenses. But as any financial planner would tell you, perhaps aside from the whistleblower, you don’t draw on your 401(k) except in the event of an emergency.

Funds with a higher purpose

In the meanwhile, Americans might benefit from learning that the church carries its extensive worldwide programs for family history and temple work across 177 temples being maintained (and more than 50 others in construction). It provides funds for disaster relief and for servicing and building chapels and funding the activities of more than 30,000 congregations and tens of thousands of church missionaries. The church educates 850,000 seminary and institutes students and subsidizes four brick-and-mortar higher education campuses, and a global education program called BYU-Pathways, at a total cost of an estimated $1.5 billion per year. 

To put that into context, Michael Bloomberg made news by giving away $1.8 billion to Johns Hopkins University, one of the largest single donations to an American university. Church educational institutions spend nearly that amount every year — in perpetuity.

I think this point is worth some attention and discussion.

Quote

An earlier clarification by the church still applies today. Despite its many investments and strong financial position today, “the bulk of the church’s assets are money-consuming assets, rather than money-producing.” Tens of thousands of houses of worship, temples, missions, genealogical centers and universities all take money to operate. 

On top of that, the church is now giving $1 billion in humanitarian efforts each year. Economic justice activists who dream of wealth redistribution programs from the rich to the impoverished might be surprised to learn this is all done voluntarily.

Seems pretty newsworthy.

Yes, it does.

Quote

And at a time when the U.S. government pays as much in debt servicing as it does for funding the military, it may also be worth celebrating once in a while a large service-oriented organization able to balance a budget and achieve fiscal responsibility over decades. 

It’s certainly fair to consider where best an organization should dedicate resources. And it’s fair to debate how large of a cash reserve any organization should maintain. But there’s good reason to believe the ratio of reserves is in line with best practices for large, global charitable organizations. 

Great article!

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

Ugh, I hate it when people compare business or charity or household budgeting and compare it favorably to government spending. A government is nothing like either. It would actually be a bad idea for most governments to stockpile financial reserves, run huge surpluses, and the like.

These criticisms were probably more accurate a few decades back when apostles and other general authorities often served on corporate board of directors for church and non-church interests and drew salaries. While it seems a logical way to support those who need some income the optics were bad. I think it was President Hinckley who ended that practice (outside of a few exceptions allowed over the years).

[smac97]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Ugh, I hate it when people compare business or charity or household budgeting and compare it favorably to government spending.  A government is nothing like either. It would actually be a bad idea for most governments to stockpile financial reserves, run huge surpluses, and the like.

But it would be a good idea for governments to avoid and/or get out of debt (or keep it as low as is economically advisable), within their means, be fiscally responsible, etc.  That is, after all, the comparison being drawn here: "And at a time when the U.S. government pays as much in debt servicing as it does for funding the military, it may also be worth celebrating once in a while a large service-oriented organization able to balance a budget and achieve fiscal responsibility over decades."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 17, 2023 by smac97

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But it would be a good idea for governments to live avoid and/or get out of debt, within their means, be fiscally responsible, etc.  That is, after all, the comparison being drawn here: "And at a time when the U.S. government pays as much in debt servicing as it does for funding the military, it may also be worth celebrating once in a while a large service-oriented organization able to balance a budget and achieve fiscal responsibility over decades."

Thanks,

-Smac

It actually wouldn’t be a good idea to have no debt. US treasury bonds and other instruments serve a valuable purpose. Having the government end its debt and stockpile resources would mean the government would become a HUGE player in the investment market to the disadvantage of virtually everyone else particularly the wealthy.

While you can argue the debt is excessive treating it like something to pay off to secure the future is just silly. Also the people who complain about the debt the most seem pathologically averse to actually doing anything about it in any case.

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

It actually wouldn’t be a good idea to have no debt. US treasury bonds and other instruments serve a valuable purpose.

I'd rather not have my taxes go towards paying debt.  I can live without the interest I earn on the investments I hold that include treasury bonds.

 

Edited May 16, 2023 by ksfisher

[The Nehor]

17 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I'd rather not have my taxes go towards paying debt.  I can live without the interest I earn on the investments I hold that include treasury bonds.

 

Here is an old report from back in the days after we had two Presidents who were actually serious about reducing the deficit and (if the trend had continued) could have potentially sharply reduced or even eliminated the debt (George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton). It covers some of the financial ramifications of ending treasury bonds which do a lot of heavy lifting:

https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2011/10/20/LifeAfterDebt.pdf

Then that potential future was quickly eradicated.

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

But it would be a good idea for governments to live avoid and/or get out of debt, within their means, be fiscally responsible, etc.  That is, after all, the comparison being drawn here: "And at a time when the U.S. government pays as much in debt servicing as it does for funding the military, it may also be worth celebrating once in a while a large service-oriented organization able to balance a budget and achieve fiscal responsibility over decades."

Thanks,

-Smac

If we are going to compare the government to the church, then let's do it. 

Imagine the government doing what the church does: year after year, decade after decade, it spends only about 90% of the tax revenue it brings in. The balance goes into a rainy day fund. It never taps into the rainy day fund. Not for the Great Recession. Not for the COVID-19 shutdown. Nothing. Never. Nada. The government's rainy day fund grows to the point where its interest income is enough to fully fund the government without taxes. But it doesn't lower taxes. At all. And it doesn't increase government services. It continues to reinvest all of the investment income, and continues to live on 90% of the tax revenue. 

Would you laud the government for doing that? 

Edited May 16, 2023 by Analytics

[ksfisher]

17 minutes ago, Analytics said:

If we are going to compare the government to the church, then let's do it. 

Imagine the government doing what the church does: year after year, decade after decade, it spends only about 90% of the tax revenue it brings in. The balance goes into a rainy day fund. It never taps into the rainy day fund. Not for the Great Recession. Not for the COVID-19 shutdown. Nothing. Never. Nada. The government's rainy day fund grows to the point where its interest income is enough to fully fund the government without taxes. But it doesn't lower taxes. At all. And it doesn't increase government services. It continues to reinvest all of the investment income, and continues to live on 90% of the tax revenue. 

Would you laud the government for doing that? 

A month after doing my taxes I would be just fine with the above scenario if my taxes were only 10% of my income.

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Great article!

Ahh the persecution complex is strong in the one padawan.

But the interest in the LDS church's massive wealth is well founded. And other organizations have been subject to criticisms and scrutiny on such things as well.. Just check out Scientology. 

 

It has become pretty clear that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is pheromonally wealthy.  And it has an enormous amount of discretionary wealth. Enough to operate the church for 3 decades if it never received another dime.  Maybe really forever if it  paid for its operations of the earnings of its discretionary assets.  So sure there is an interest. And the Church does it tax free. So it has a huge advantage. Some thinking people may find this as a reason to adjust the US tax laws on such things. Thus the interest. Add to that how paranoidly secretive the church is about its finances and thus more curiosity.  Bishop Waddell was laughable in the interview.  And an embarrassment.

You all can cheer the church that claims to be the Church of Jesus Christ becoming one of the most wealthy institutions in the USA and maybe the world.  Great work if your goal is to become wealthy and to have crazy amounts of assets.  It is an amazing thing and could be lauded.  Of course where your treasure it, that is where your heart is also. Personally, IMO the amount of non operating assets the church has is obscene and immoral for a church that claims to the that of Jesus Christ.  But they won't get one more dime from me ever. THough they did get a few hundred thousand or more over the years.  My not unsubstantial donations not go to organizations that actually use it to relive human suffering to a high degree and percent of what they recieve.

 

[Analytics]

Quote

Along the way, little effort goes into helping viewers appreciate how the faith tradition actually uses its financial resources.

Do these authors recognize the irony in this? 60 Minutes gave Bishop Waddell the opportunity to help viewers understand what the Church's financial resources are and how they are deployed. His response was this information is "confidential." 

Quote

But there’s good reason to believe the ratio of reserves is in line with best practices for large, global charitable organizations. 

There are in fact best practices for how large, global charitable organizations are transparent with the public regarding their finances. The Church utterly disregards these best practices.

Likewise, there are best practices for how large global charitable organizations set reserves. The Church utterly disregards these best practices, too.

I suppose reasons exist to believe the Church follows best practices with regards to money. But they aren't good reasons.

Edited May 16, 2023 by Analytics

[blackstrap]

For those who would like a visual representation of what a trillion dollars looks like, here is one along with a bit about the pros and cons of debt. 

U.S. Debt: Visualizing the $31.4 Trillion Owed in 2023 (visualcapitalist.com)

 

[LoudmouthMormon]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

But it would be a good idea for governments to live avoid and/or get out of debt, within their means, be fiscally responsible, etc.  That is, after all, the comparison being drawn here: "And at a time when the U.S. government pays as much in debt servicing as it does for funding the military, it may also be worth celebrating once in a while a large service-oriented organization able to balance a budget and achieve fiscal responsibility over decades."

Thanks,

-Smac

It actually wouldn’t be a good idea to have no debt.

Ooh!  Great - lets compromise.

@smac97 thinks 0 debt would be good.

@The Nehor thinks some debt would be good.

Maybe we draw a line halfway through the chart, and say almost 1 trillion in debt would be ok?  Or maybe 2-3 trillion?  Honestly, I'd be willing to give up a lot to have my nation go down to 1-3 trillion in debt.

Pareto charts like this are nice when they depict temple construction, or maybe covid vaccinations given.  Spiraling unstoppable debt growth is simply unacceptable.

Edited May 16, 2023 by LoudmouthMormon

[Hamilton Porter]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Ugh, I hate it when people compare business or charity or household budgeting and compare it favorably to government spending. A government is nothing like either. It would actually be a bad idea for most governments to stockpile financial reserves, run huge surpluses, and the like.

These criticisms were probably more accurate a few decades back when apostles and other general authorities often served on corporate board of directors for church and non-church interests and drew salaries. While it seems a logical way to support those who need some income the optics were bad. I think it was President Hinckley who ended that practice (outside of a few exceptions allowed over the years).

That's true, but not universally. Taiwan, for instance, stockpiles foreign reserves because they're not a member of the IMF, can't become a member, and hence can't ask for a bailout if some financial crisis occurs.

[Hamilton Porter]

Americans have always followed trashy nonsense. You ever wonder why Europeans think we're stupid and fat? (Besides the reality that we're stupid and fat)

Kardashians, Demilios. Obsessed about the royal family when it's not even ours. 

Edited May 16, 2023 by Hamilton Porter

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Great article!

Ahh the persecution complex is strong in the one padawan.

The gaslighting propensities is strong in others.

A persecution complex is "an irrational and obsessive feeling or fear that one is the object of collective hostility or ill-treatment on the part of others."  My comments are neither irrational nor obsessive, nor are they based on "fear."  But it's unreasonable to say that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not "the object of collective hostility or ill-treatment" by others, particularly coming from someone who so regularly disparages and calumnates against his former faith.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

But the interest in the LDS church's massive wealth is well founded.

As is my interest in those critiques.  

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

And other organizations have been subject to criticisms and scrutiny on such things as well.. Just check out Scientology. 

The Latter-day Saints invited scrutiny and criticism.  I'm fine with that.  It's the incivility that I find problematic.  The casual slanders and misrepresentations.  The eager willingness of our critics to step in and presume to tell others what we believe, what we think, and so on.  

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

It has become pretty clear that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is pheromonally wealthy. 

Well, perhaps.  I'm not sure what pheremones have to do with any of this.  

But yes, the Church is "phenomenally wealthy" given its income and wise stewardship of its funds.  It also has tremendous and regular financial obligations.

Moreover, I will once again point out that despite this smelly ("pheremonal") and substantial ("phenomenal") institutional wealth, those who have access to and control over it are not enriching themselves.  

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

And it has an enormous amount of discretionary wealth. Enough to operate the church for 3 decades if it never received another dime. 

Speculation on your part.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Maybe really forever if it  paid for its operations of the earnings of its discretionary assets.  So sure there is an interest.

Still, the expression of that interest is often rather weird.  And unreasonable.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

And the Church does it tax free. So it has a huge advantage.

A "huge advantage" over whom?  Against whom/what is the Church competing?

The Church is not getting anyone wealthy.  And it exists to pursue religious, educational, and humanitarian/charitable objectives.

And yet there are those who want to punish the Church, to see its tax exempt status stripped, to see it lessened.  

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Some thinking people may find this as a reason to adjust the US tax laws on such things.  Thus the interest.

I think many of those people use the tax code as a pretext.  

I also think many of these folks are selectively indignant about "US tax laws on such things."  

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Add to that how paranoidly secretive the church is about its finances and thus more curiosity. 

Says the guy who posts anonymously.

If and when you publish your private financial data to the world, and when such an expectation is not solely targeted against a religious group you dislike, I'll start taking this critique more seriously.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

You all can cheer the church that claims to be the Church of Jesus Christ becoming one of the most wealthy institutions in the USA and maybe the world. Great work if your goal is to become wealthy and to have crazy amounts of assets. 

I think the goal of the Church is to fulfill its faith-based mandates.  In order to do that, it must be - and remain - financially solvent and stable.  In the years ahead I see the Church shrinking amongst the comparatively affluent in the world, with more and more people of modest means joining it.  As that happens, the financial contributions to the Church may well shrink considerably, and its financial obligations may increase substantially at the same time.  If and when this comes to pass, I think the Saints will look back and be grateful that the Brethren stored up during the Seven Years of Plenty.

Again, nobody is getting wealthy off the Church, so "your goal is to become wealthy and to have crazy amounts of assets" is, in my view, unreasonable and unfair.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

It is an amazing thing and could be lauded. 

"If."

"Could be."

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Of course where your treasure it, that is where your heart is also.

Again, nobody is getting wealthy off the Church.  

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Personally, IMO the amount of non operating assets the church has is obscene and immoral for a church that claims to the that of Jesus Christ. 

I will once again point to these trenchant comments from D. Michael Quinn:

Quote

Questions persist inside and outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints about the $100 billion reserve the faith has amassed in an investment account.

In this week’s “Mormon Land” podcast, historian D. Michael Quinn says the church’s reserves are actually much steeper than has been reported. But, he adds, so are its expenses, especially in supporting its global presence.

Quinn, a scholar who has done the deepest dive to date into the history of Latter-day Saint finances — his 2017 book, “Mormon Hierarchy: Wealth & Corporate Power,” remains the definitive volume on the subject — discusses the issue.

Listen here.

And here:

Quote

{Quinn} says the LDS Church’s financial trajectory, as well as the self-sacrificing actions of its hierarchy, is “an enormously faith-promoting story.”

If everyday Mormons could grasp “the larger picture,” he says, they would “breathe a sigh of relief and see the church is not a profit-making business.”

Others, though, may not be as comfortable as Quinn with how corporate the church has become. For that, it takes some historical perspective.

I find your denunciations of the Church selective and ad hoc.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 16, 2023 by smac97

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

If we are going to compare the government to the church, then let's do it. 

Imagine the government doing what the church does: year after year, decade after decade, it spends only about 90% of the tax revenue it brings in. The balance goes into a rainy day fund. It never taps into the rainy day fund. Not for the Great Recession. Not for the COVID-19 shutdown. Nothing. Never. Nada. The government's rainy day fund grows to the point where its interest income is enough to fully fund the government without taxes. But it doesn't lower taxes. At all. And it doesn't increase government services. It continues to reinvest all of the investment income, and continues to live on 90% of the tax revenue. 

Would you laud the government for doing that? 

I know this isn’t the point of your example but if the government actually did this it would have huge ramifications. The government would own huge amounts of the private sector via investment. Returns on investments would fall as the supply of investment money skyrockets. It could very easily slip into actual communism and give you the worst of both capitalism and communism as the government controls the private sector through capitalism. The church can do it because they are a relatively small fish. The government would be a VERY BIG FISH and dominate everything.

[The Nehor]

35 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

That's true, but not universally. Taiwan, for instance, stockpiles foreign reserves because they're not a member of the IMF, can't become a member, and hence can't ask for a bailout if some financial crisis occurs.

It is true when you are a hegemonic world power with a very powerful economy whose currency sets much of the world’s financial standards and whose treasury bonds act to stabilize the nation and other nations. Small nations can get away with things that wouldn’t work for larger ones.

[The Nehor]

Also why compare the Church to the US government operating at a perpetual loss. Why not compare it to the big corporations that lose money year over year to grow their market share on the backs of investment and technically lose money year over year?

[The Nehor]

45 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Ooh!  Great - lets compromise.

@smac97 thinks 0 debt would be good.

@The Nehor thinks some debt would be good.

Maybe we draw a line halfway through the chart, and say almost 1 trillion in debt would be ok?  Or maybe 2-3 trillion?  Honestly, I'd be willing to give up a lot to have my nation go down to 1-3 trillion in debt.

Pareto charts like this are nice when they depict temple construction, or maybe covid vaccinations given.  Spiraling unstoppable debt growth is simply unacceptable.

That chart is very out of date. If you find its growth unacceptable I would recommend looking at the year by year deficits and surpluses and figure out what kinds of policies are behind the problem.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The gaslighting propensities is strong in others.

A persecution complex is "an irrational and obsessive feeling or fear that one is the object of collective hostility or ill-treatment on the part of others."  My comments are neither rational nor obsessive, nor are they based on "fear."  But it's unreasonable to say that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not "the object of collective hostility or ill-treatment" by others, particularly coming from someone who so regularly disparages and calumnates against his former faith.

As is my interest in those critiques.  

The Latter-day Saints invited scrutiny and criticism.  I'm fine with that.  It's the incivility that I find problematic.  The casual slanders and misrepresentations.  The eager willingness of our critics to step in and presume to tell others what we believe, what we think, and so on.  

Well, perhaps.  I'm not sure what pheremones have to do with any of this.  

But yes, the Church is "phenomenally wealthy" given its income and wise stewardship of its funds.  It also has tremendous and regular financial obligations.

Moreover, I will once again point out that despite this smelly ("pheremonal") and substantial ("phenomenal") institutional wealth, those who have access to and control over it are not enriching themselves.  

Speculation on your part.

Still, the expression of that interest is often rather weird.  And unreasonable.

A "huge advantage" over whom?  Against whom/what is the Church competing?

The Church is not getting anyone wealthy.  And it exists to pursue religious, educational, and humanitarian/charitable objectives.

And yet there are those who want to punish the Church, to see its tax exempt status stripped, to see it lessened.  

I think many of those people use the tax code as a pretext.  

I also think many of these folks are selectively indignant about "US tax laws on such things."  

Says the guy who posts anonymously.

If and when you publish your private financial data to the world, and when such an expectation is not solely targeted against a religious group you dislike, I'll start taking this critique more seriously.

I think the goal of the Church is to fulfill its faith-based mandates.  In order to do that, it must be - and remain - financially solvent and stable.  In the years ahead I see the Church shrinking amongst the comparatively affluent in the world, with more and more people of modest means joining it.  As that happens, the financial contributions to the Church may well shrink considerably, and its financial obligations may increase substantially at the same time.  If and when this comes to pass, I think the Saints will look back and be grateful that the Brethren stored up during the Seven Years of Plenty.

Again, nobody is getting wealthy off the Church, so "your goal is to become wealthy and to have crazy amounts of assets" is, in my view, unreasonable and unfair.

"If."

"Could be."

Again, nobody is getting wealthy off the Church.  

I will once again point to these trenchant comments from D. Michael Quinn:

And here:

I find your denunciations of the Church selective and ad hoc.

Thanks,

-Smac

Dude, so many issues you have and poor arguments that you repeat over and over.  Oh and sorry  for my misspellings that you like to mock. I know I need to do better editing my posts. I go fast and don't have much time.  Maybe unlike you I actually am a partner in a large CPA firm and can't spent endless hours in debating people here. Based on your lengthy verbose posts that supply all sorts of stuff/links/articles that you think back up your posts I just do not have time for that.  Do you have a job?  

 

But the main point I want to make, and I will come back to revisit this horrible post you made is this:

Quote

 

Says the guy who posts anonymously.

If and when you publish your private financial data to the world, and when such an expectation is not solely targeted against a religious group you dislike, I'll start taking this critique more seriously.

 

First you post anonymously. So take a hike.  

As for your frequent comments about me or others publishing our personal financial data I will be happy to do so when I caline tax exempt status and rake in billions of $ a year with charitable contributions, as well as amassing hundreds of billions of wealth.  And oh by the way my concern about financial disclosure is not just focused on the Mormon Church. It is for all tax exempt organizations. As a CPA financial disclosure is an important thing to me. And Church's should not be exempt form such disclosures. It leads to abuse.  As your Church has demonstrated.

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, Teancum said:

First you post anonymously.

His name is in his profile and has been for as long as I remember. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Dude, so many issues you have and poor arguments that you repeat over and over.  Oh and sorry  for my misspellings that you like to mock.

It was a minor attempt at levity, that's all.  I pretty much always ignore spelling errors.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

But the main point I want to make, and I will come back to revisit this horrible post you made is this:

Quote

Says the guy who posts anonymously.

If and when you publish your private financial data to the world, and when such an expectation is not solely targeted against a religious group you dislike, I'll start taking this critique more seriously.

First you post anonymously. So take a hike.  

I do not.  Each and every post carries my IRL name:

Quote

smac97

Contributor
 15.9k
Gender: Male
Interests: My name is Spencer Macdonald

I have been doing this for, I think, 15 years or more.

Moreover, my posts are in defense of my faith, whereas you have racked up 8,000+ posts which mostly disparage, insult, ridicule, etc. a religious minority you dislike.  I do not go to message boards themed on other religious groups and denigrate their beliefs to their faces.  Nor do I do this on a regular basis, to the tune of 8,000+ posts.  That's your bag, not mine.  What I do on this board and what you do are not really comparable.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

As for your frequent comments about me or others publishing our personal financial data I will be happy to do so when I caline tax exempt status and rake in billions of $ a year with charitable contributions, as well as amassing hundreds of billions of wealth.

You fabricate conditions that exempt you from the expectations about financial disclosure which you presume to impose on others.  Convenient, that.

You are a private party.  You have no legal obligation to disclose your personal financial or other sensitive data to the world.  This would hold even if you were confronted with arbitrarily-created disclosure requirements presented by self-appointed, hostile, fault-finding, "do as I say, not as I do" looky-loos.

I suppose you could sidestep into a "Yeah, but you guys have a moral obligation..."-style demand, but I won't hold my breath.  Such subjective demands often don't hold up well, and can turn around on ya.  You want your privacy, and I don't fault you for that.  It's the "privacy for me and mine, but not for thee and thine" stuff that I find problematic.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

And oh by the way my concern about financial disclosure is not just focused on the Mormon Church. It is for all tax exempt organizations.

I wrote this in 2021:

Quote

I think most reasonably-informed members understand that the Church has expenses that are not directly involved with these "religious ways."

I also 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.

I think this holds true today.

And you'll pardon my skepticism about you being just some impartial bystander.  

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

As a CPA financial disclosure is an important thing to me. And Church's should not be exempt form such disclosures. It leads to abuse.  As your Church has demonstrated.

Malarky.  The Church's record of financial management (for the last many decades) has been exemplary.

I am sorry you are so angry at the Church.  I find it to be a wonderful organization, with lots of good people in it.  It's virtues vastly outstrip its vices and flaws.  It is doing a lot of good in the world.  The world is a better place because Latter-day Saints are in it, and much of what makes Latter-day Saints who they are arises from the doctrines and beliefs of their faith, and because they cohere around an institution you really really dislike.  I sense that much of your vitriol arises from your from-affiliation-to-alienation journey.  I would prefer to have amicable discussions, but I think you are a bully who insists on disparaging your former faith.  As I find real value in that faith, I find it worth defending, and so reluctantly do so.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 17, 2023 by smac97

[Pyreaux]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

It was a minor attempt at levity, that's all.  I pretty much always ignore spelling errors.

Oh no, Grammar Nazi!

[blackstrap]

grammar and spelling should not be conflated. 😈

[sunstoned]

I posted this on the other thread, but I think it belongs here. This is the Newsweek article which has an interesting take on the Deseret News 60 minutes piece.

Mormon-Owned Paper Slams '60 Minutes' Episode

CBS's 60 Minutes has come under fire from a publication owned by the Mormon Church after the show aired an interview with a whistleblower who alleges the church's financial arm tried to hide billions of dollars and abuse its tax-exempt status.

In the episode aired Sunday, David Nielsen, a former investment adviser for the church, accused the church's investment arm, Ensign Peak Advisors, of acting as "a clandestine hedge fund". It was the first time he had spoken publicly since telling federal regulators in 2019 that the fund amassed $100 billion intended for charitable purposes.

https://www.newsweek.com/morman-news-cb ... ts-1800635