Deseret News Opinion Piece: Perspective: I teach tax law. This is what I wish reporters understood about church finances

[webbles]

5 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

It would be interesting to learn whether or not the SEC asked to see the employee performance reviews of the “managers” of the llcs. How much they were compensated  for managing all those billions of dollars in equities and the responsibility of voting all those shares as well. 
 

I bet exactly zero of the signers reviews even mentioned the “managers” performance or role as a company manager. 

The "Business Managers" job wasn't to manage any money.  The SEC, in the complaint, wrote down what the "Business Managers" responsibilities and they had nothing to do with money.  They were never expected to do anything with the money.  Their job was to file tax forms and sign documents.

[LoudmouthMormon]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

And if your calling is anything other than a member of the presiding bishopric or a member of the first presidency, then these decisions are above your pay grade.  

May God bless and protect us from people enslaved to the mindset of seeing church through the lens of capitalist corporate America. 

Yes, I'm extending that line of thought to its logical extreme.  If the church office building and paid employees ever start taking the place of prophets/apostles/GAs/SPs/BPs/bishops, I'll happily join you and your zesty criticism.   I'll know that day has arrived the millisecond you can direct me to the sections in the church handbook that talk about promotions and performance reviews.

Yeesh.  Pay grade.  As if I'm higher status/more valuable than the guy stuck in nursery or the ministering sister, because I get to sit in on the occasional bishopric meeting.  It's like talking to a coal miner with no parakeet who doesn't know how sick he is.

 

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

I appreciate the candor here. Your sentiments remind me of the excuses Joseph Smith made for not telling Emma about all of the women he was marrying, and about the Church's excuses for lying about polygamy to the public, to investigators, and to the general membership until August of 1852.

I know.  Because you're stepping over the consistent universal application of LDS policy and practice, where we don't answer to anyone outside of our church, in order to focus on the couple times we had a problem and took care of business. 

Pray tell, which professional standards organization should we (sorry, my superiors in the SLC C-suite) join in order to make sure our ministering or welfare system adheres to secular best practices?

 

(I'm trying to drip with sufficient sarcasm, that I'm washed clean of the icky feeling I get from your image of the church as an S&P 500 company.  Ew.  Just ew.  If you're truly only able to see the church through that lens, no wonder you're so ticked off.)

 

 

Edited September 21, 2023 by LoudmouthMormon

[Diamondhands69]

2 hours ago, webbles said:

The "Business Managers" job wasn't to manage any money.  The SEC, in the complaint, wrote down what the "Business Managers" responsibilities and they had nothing to do with money.  They were never expected to do anything with the money.  Their job was to file tax forms and sign documents.

Well yea no one knows what they did, but the SEC order is clear they ( the llc or the manager who seems to be the sole employee. Maybe Casper the ghost was their licensed trader registered with the SEC) did no trading or voting contrary to what the 13f itself said.
 

The point is there is probably a lack of ANY  indication on their employee performance appraisals that they are business manager of an llc which is worth probably just as much as ensign peak or possibly more if we are to believe the false 13fs they all signed. 

[Diamondhands69]

10 hours ago, ksfisher said:

After I donate the money it is out of my hands.  I've done what the Lord has asked me to do. 
 

ok

10 hours ago, ksfisher said:

 

If my donation can be wisely invested and grow, as in the parable of the talents, I'm fine with that.

I don’t disagree

10 hours ago, ksfisher said:

 

i really don't think anyone is paying tithing because they believe the church is going to run out of money or is low on funds.  People pay tithing to the church because they desire to obey the Lord's commandments.

No one? I’m sure plenty of folks are under the impression the church needs their money. Like these fine folks in Brazil: 

“They gave the gold from their dental work to help pay on the temple, said President Faust. He explained that he had purchased some of that gold, for more than the market price, and has shown the gold fillings to various congregations to illustrate the nature of the sacrifice made by these members.”

https://www.thechurchnews.com/1998/5/9/23250717/be-loyal-worthy-to-enter-temple-members-urged

pres Faust should have written a check to a local dentist to refill all their teeth. Makes me sick the church thinks this story is a good one. Sure it highlights a sacrifice, but the church could have just paid for the temple. Now they go around bragging they paid them for their gold teeth.   

 

10 hours ago, ksfisher said:

 

I don't think your inference here is descriptive of those whom the Lord has called to lead His church.

 

[Diamondhands69]

On 9/18/2023 at 8:51 AM, smac97 said:

You are "hiding" your IRL name right now.  And your address.  And your employer.  And your SSN.  And your bank account numbers and logins.

Can bystanders disparage your integrity on that basis?  Nope.  Why?  Because absent a duty to disclose, there is no misconduct in withholding, or even "hiding," information.

When I tell people I’m a prophet, and I have a church which tells people how to live their lives, when I hold their attendance at their children’s weddings in the temple hostage for tithing payments, when I tell people to pay their way for a two year mission and treat them like crap while they are there and when I tell people they need to pay me in order to be saved then I have a duty to expose my finances. I owe it to them to prove I am on the up and up. 
 

as an individual who does none of that- yea you are right. I have no duty to do so. 

Edited September 21, 2023 by Diamondhands69

[Benjamin McGuire]

16 hours ago, Analytics said:

That's simply not true. In the words of the Director of theSEC's Division of Enforcement, the Church "went to great lengths to avoid disclosing the Church’s investments, depriving the Commission and the investing public of accurate market information."

I don't think that this characterization is accurate.

The problem is/was rather narrow. Had EPA allowed the managers of the different funds to actually manage them, then there would have been no issues here at all - there would be nothing that was out of sorts (as far as the SEC is concerned), and we would never have seen the SEC's involvement. It was the fact that the Church/EPA wanted to maintain a centralized control of the funds that was the issue. And this complicates the way that you are describing it here. With a single entity controlling that much, then there is an interest for the Commission and the investing public to understand the situation. Without that single point of control, the information the SEC was getting and that the investing public was getting would have been perfectly adequate.

13 hours ago, Analytics said:

To answer these questions, there needs to be transparency. The Church ought to make a public report of all its assets available to the apostles. And to the lower general authorities. And to the general membership. And to the public. With transparency, we can make intelligent decisions about whether the donations and subsidizations we give it are worth it.

I don't disagree with this, but it is clear that this isn't required (and it is also clear that this a standard that most religious organizations aren't held to - but I think that this should be kept as a different topic - that is, how should we as a society decide what should be tax-exempt and the additional question of whether or not we should tax these organizations or the funds being donated to them ....). Had the fund managers been completely independent, there wouldn't have been any problem with the system that was set up. This would have had the impact of making all of those investment funds independent, and no form 13F would have been required. It is clear that the LDS Church was unwilling to give up (through EPA) that total control - because the other way to have corrected this situation (the way that wasn't the filing of form 13F) would have been to have given the fund managers autonomous control.

13 hours ago, Analytics said:

But granting an organization like Ensign Peak Advisors tax exemption is a massive subsidization.

I think that this is a mis-characterization. Why? Because the growth of the funds has largely been from the growth of the stocks that were invested in. The tax exemption only applies when there is a capital gain - and based on the stocks invested here, the gains seem to be mostly long term holdings rather than a constant turn-over in investments. In other words, there wouldn't be much of a tax assessment at this point (except perhaps from the dividends). The point of this is that as long as we are looking at investment holdings, they aren't funds that can be taxed, nor can we assess how those funds (once the investments are turned into cash) are being used. We don't really have an ongoing massive subsidization, we have the potential for a massive subsidization.

Finally -

13 hours ago, Analytics said:

We shouldn't be giving massive multi-billion dollar tax subsidies to charities whose contributions to the world are not commensurate with the size of the subsidies.

I think that it is 1) hard to put values to the contributions of religions - their value is different from what we might label as a more traditional 'charity.' 2) It is even more difficult to contemplate the burden that this sort of thing would place on all religious organizations. I am not saying that we shouldn't tax religious organizations - I am just pointing out that we work in a system that is manageable only because we use a one-size fits all approach. And those kinds of approaches tend to create situations that don't always align well with intentions. Because of this, the discussion that you are talking about here shouldn't be limited to the LDS Church but should instead be about the larger policy goals of supporting religion (and non-profits) through these exemptions. I am not sure that the LDS Church can really be faulted for taking the steps that it feels that it needs to, to protect its interests.

Edited September 21, 2023 by Benjamin McGuire

[Leaf474]

9 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

No one? I’m sure plenty of folks are under the impression the church needs their money. Like these fine folks in Brazil: 

“They gave the gold from their dental work to help pay on the temple, said President Faust. He explained that he had purchased some of that gold, for more than the market price, and has shown the gold fillings to various congregations to illustrate the nature of the sacrifice made by these members.”

https://www.thechurchnews.com/1998/5/9/23250717/be-loyal-worthy-to-enter-temple-members-urged

pres Faust should have written a check to a local dentist to refill all their teeth. Makes me sick the church thinks this story is a good one. Sure it highlights a sacrifice, but the church could have just paid for the temple. Now they go around bragging they paid them for their gold teeth.   

I'm not saying this does or doesn't apply, but this came to my mind

Proverbs 22:16

Whoever oppresses the poor for his own increase and whoever gives to the rich,

    both come to poverty.

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I don't think that this characterization is accurate.

The problem is/was rather narrow. Had EPA allowed the managers of the different funds to actually manage them, then there would have been no issues here at all - there would be nothing that was out of sorts (as far as the SEC is concerned), and we would never have seen the SEC's involvement. It was the fact that the Church/EPA wanted to maintain a centralized control of the funds that was the issue. And this complicates the way that you are describing it here. With a single entity controlling that much, then there is an interest for the Commission and the investing public to understand the situation. Without that single point of control, the information the SEC was getting and that the investing public was getting would have been perfectly adequate.

Yes, on their faces the 13F's appeared to be filled out correctly, and if the Church would have operated the way the 13F's represented, there wouldn't have been a problem.

However, that was never the intention. They invented business names that weren't associated with the Church, incorporated them in states across the country that aren't associated with the Church, and set them up with addresses and phone numbers that aren't associated with the Church. They then found Church employees to pretend to be "business managers" to sign reports they didn't read and didn't understand based on one thing: having names and social media profiles that couldn't be traced back to the Church. Those are great lengths. And why did they do it? To avoid disclosing the Church's investments.

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I don't disagree with this, but it is clear that this isn't required (and it is also clear that this a standard that most religious organizations aren't held to - but I think that this should be kept as a different topic - that is, how should we as a society decide what should be tax-exempt and the additional question of whether or not we should tax these organizations or the funds being donated to them ....).

Good point.

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Had the fund managers been completely independent, there wouldn't have been any problem with the system that was set up. This would have had the impact of making all of those investment funds independent, and no form 13F would have been required. It is clear that the LDS Church was unwilling to give up (through EPA) that total control - because the other way to have corrected this situation (the way that wasn't the filing of form 13F) would have been to have given the fund managers autonomous control.

Yes. There were multiple ways the Church could have complied with the regulations, but there wasn't a way to comply with the regulations and their internal imperative of keeping these details away from whomever it is hiding it from (i.e. the Church's membership).

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I think that this is a mis-characterization. Why? Because the growth of the funds has largely been from the growth of the stocks that were invested in. The tax exemption only applies when there is a capital gain - and based on the stocks invested here, the gains seem to be mostly long term holdings rather than a constant turn-over in investments. In other words, there wouldn't be much of a tax assessment at this point (except perhaps from the dividends). The point of this is that as long as we are looking at investment holdings, they aren't funds that can be taxed, nor can we assess how those funds (once the investments are turned into cash) are being used. We don't really have an ongoing massive subsidization, we have the potential for a massive subsidization.

I suppose whether EPA's tax burden would be "massive" depends upon how "massive" is defined. If 20% of EPA's annual income were considered taxable income, that would still be an annual taxable income in the 10-digits. Regardless, it is clear that there is a problem in our society: the playing field is tilted very, very, heavily towards the rich (including EPA) getting richer, the poor staying poor, the middle class shrinking, limited upward mobility, winner-takes-all economics, and a federal government that doesn't collect nearly enough in taxes. The system needs an overhaul that goes beyond whether or not churches enjoy unlimited tax exemption.

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Finally -

I think that it is 1) hard to put values to the contributions of religions - their value is different from what we might label as a more traditional 'charity.' 2) It is even more difficult to contemplate the burden that this sort of thing would place on all religious organizations. I am not saying that we shouldn't tax religious organizations - I am just pointing out that we work in a system that is manageable only because we use a one-size fits all approach. And those kinds of approaches tend to create situations that don't always align well with intentions. Because of this, the discussion that you are talking about here shouldn't be limited to the LDS Church but should instead be about the larger policy goals of supporting religion (and non-profits) through these exemptions. I am not sure that the LDS Church can really be faulted for taking the steps that it feels that it needs to, to protect its interests.

On the one hand the Church's situation is unique. If Churches were required to pay income taxes, the vast majority would shrug their shoulders because they don't turn a profit anyway.

But on the other hand you are right--the entire tax system needs an overhaul. 

[Analytics]

12 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

May God bless and protect us from people enslaved to the mindset of seeing church through the lens of capitalist corporate America. 

Would that include protecting you from the Church's general authorities? Being extremely successful in capitalist corporate America is a almost prerequisite for becoming a general authority.

In capitalist corporate America, "winning" is defined as accumulating the most money. Quoting Time:

Quote

A primary reason for the church's business triumphs, says University of Washington sociologist Stark, is that it has no career clerics, only amateurs who have been plucked for service from successful endeavors in other fields. (In fact, there is no ordained clergy whatsoever: the term priest applies to all males over age 12 in good standing in the church, and "bishops," while supervising congregations, are part-time lay leaders.) Religious observers point out that this creates a vacuum of theological talent in a church with a lot of unusual theology to explain. But the benefit, notes Stark, is that "people at the top of the Mormon church have immense experience in the world. These guys have been around the track. Why do they choose to invest directly? Because they are not helpless. They are a bunch of hard-nosed businessmen."

 

[Benjamin McGuire]

19 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Those are great lengths. And why did they do it? To avoid disclosing the Church's investments.

Yes, but isn't this at least partly the reason why the system is set up the way that it is? This allows an organization to conceal financial holdings while allowing the investing public and the governmental agencies to understand the size and scope of an investor's holdings.

I am not commenting here on the ethics of the LDS Church concealing the scope of its funds. The reason why I believe they did this seems to me to be reasonable, but I can also understand the desire for a church to have some transparency with its stakeholders (its members). There is always at least a potential gap between the way that funds can be used (and meet regulatory concerns) and the way that its stakeholders believe that the funds should be used.

26 minutes ago, Analytics said:

If 20% of EPA's annual income were considered taxable income, that would still be an annual taxable income in the 10-digits.

I am not sure that I understand your argument here. EPA doesn't own the assets that it manages - they are stilled own by the LDS Church - all of these funds are considered Assets Under Management (AUM). The 'income' that would come from this management represents what the LDS Church pays EPA to manage these funds - not what is in the funds themselves. It seems very doubtful that EPA's annual income is all that significant. It would be easy enough for the LDS Church to convert EPA to a for-profit, it would add some to the cost of managing these funds - but unless the LDS Church intended to build up a source of private non-profit equity in this way, there is no reason to think that the LDS Church would be spending "10-digits" in funding for the management of their asset funds. In the long run, doing so (making EPA for profit) might even be in the LDS Church's interests since it would remove the question of the extent to which EPA is engaged in any sort of charitable activity. But this idea that there is a massive giveaway here in EPA is simply wrong. The use of the EPA was primarily to separate the LDS Church from the required disclosures of investment management at this level (something everyone recognizes). The employment of the separate fund managers was intended to subsequently separate EPA from that same sort of disclosure - since EPA was recognized as the investment arm of the LDS Church (exclusively), and so its AUM disclosures would have been recognized as the holdings of the LDS Church.

59 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Regardless, it is clear that there is a problem in our society: the playing field is tilted very, very, heavily towards the rich (including EPA) getting richer, the poor staying poor, the middle class shrinking, limited upward mobility, winner-takes-all economics, and a federal government that doesn't collect nearly enough in taxes. The system needs an overhaul that goes beyond whether or not churches enjoy unlimited tax exemption.

I would agree with this. Further, I think that there is a disconnect for the LDS Church (and other religious organizations in particular) in the way that US economic and tax policies compete with some of the goals and objectives of these organizations - e.g. the way our tax policy right now discourages marriage in our society. I think these organizations could do more here in the US to advocate for changes that would help individuals ...

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I am not sure that I understand your argument here. EPA doesn't own the assets that it manages - they are stilled own by the LDS Church - all of these funds are considered Assets Under Management (AUM).

I don't believe that is true. Ensign Peak Advisors is a public charity in its own right.* The money in Ensign Peak Advisor's accounts is money that the Church donated to it. In all likelihood, the reason EPA was created immediately after the Time Mormons Inc. article was to get this money off of the Church's balance sheet. The idea was that if the Church needed to disclose its balance sheet for whatever reason, these assets would not show up. And if the Church happened to need any money, the public charity Ensign Peak Advisors would donate whatever was needed back to the Church. The Letter to an IRS Director explains this in detail, with documentation. 

_______

*more accurately, it claims to be a public charity. David Nielsen makes serious arguments that it is really a private foundation and should be taxed as such.

Edited September 21, 2023 by Analytics

[Leaf474]

11 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I don't believe that is true. Ensign Peak Advisors is a public charity in its own right.* The money in Ensign Peak Advisor's accounts is money that the Church donated to it. In all likelihood, the reason EPA was created immediately after the Time Mormons Inc. article was to get this money off of the Church's balance sheet. The idea was that if the Church needed to disclose its balance sheet for whatever reason, these assets would not show up. And if the Church happened to need any money, the public charity Ensign Peak Advisors would donate whatever was needed back to the Church. The Letter to an IRS Director explains this in detail, with documentation. 

_______

*more accurately, it claims to be a public charity. David Nielsen makes serious arguments that it is really a private foundation and should be taxed as such.

As an outsider looking at the situation, wanting to get those funds "off the Church's balance sheet" could be a possible motivation for building lots of temples.

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

As an outsider looking at the situation, wanting to get those funds "off the Church's balance sheet" could be a possible motivation for building lots of temples.

I can see why an outsider would think that, but it has always been a long term plan of the Church to have temples “dot the earth”.

Orson Hyde dedicated Israel in 1841, including for the eventual building of a temple.

https://www.thechurchnews.com/2021/10/24/23217440/orson-hyde-dedicated-jerusalem-holy-land-180-years

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/dotting-the-earth-entering-an-era-of-new-international-temples?lang=eng#:~:text=President Joseph F.,there in the early 1900s.

Quote

President Joseph F. Smith first used the phrase of temples “dotting the land”—referencing Europe during several conferences with members there in the early 1900s. Prophets and apostles since have echoed the “dotting” phrase, expanding it to not just North and South America and Europe but to the entire world

[Benjamin McGuire]

10 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I don't believe that is true. Ensign Peak Advisors is a public charity in its own right. The money in Ensign Peak Advisor's accounts is money that the Church donated to it.

After some time reading, I think this is probably accurate.

[Leaf474]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I can see why an outsider would think that, but it has always been a long term plan of the Church to have temples “dot the earth”.

Orson Hyde dedicated Israel in 1841, including for the eventual building of a temple.

https://www.thechurchnews.com/2021/10/24/23217440/orson-hyde-dedicated-jerusalem-holy-land-180-years

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/dotting-the-earth-entering-an-era-of-new-international-temples?lang=eng#:~:text=President Joseph F.,there in the early 1900s.

I understand the Saints have always been in favor of building lots of temples. But it does seem like the rate has increased in the last maybe 10 years or so.

"...this will bring the total number of Mormon temples to 252, 70 of which have been announced during the nearly three and half years Nelson has led the church."

https://religionnews.com/2021/05/20/why-so-many-new-mormon-temples-when-lds-growth-is-flat/

 

Working on my own statistics from this website, there are currently 315 temples either already dedicated, under construction, or announced. 133, or 42%, are in the construction or announced phase.

https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/statistics/

 

So it looks to me like a real push in recent times. Am I misunderstanding? Relating it to the thread topic, it would be a good place to put the funds that - according to some - the church is embarrassed about. (Emphasizing: according to some.)

 

Indeed, it could even be implementing this wisdom:

Matthew 6:19

“Don’t lay up treasures for yourselves on the earth, where moth and rust consume, and where thieves break through and steal."

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

So it looks to me like a real push in recent times. Am I misunderstanding? Relating it to the thread topic, it would be a good place to put the funds that - according to some - the church is embarrassed about. (Emphasizing: according to some.)

It has increased, but imo it’s probably a natural progression, the Church builds temples (and has at least since the 60’s I believe from what I remember being taught as a kid) based on number of tithing paying members in the area (tithe paying is a good indicator of temple usage) and how well it can afford to build them.  In the past local members had to contribute to the building fund for a temple.  The Church took over full costs when they achieved enough financial wealth.  The rate of temple building has increased over time.  This will have to do until I can find a chart that can better pinpoint whether current temple building is an unusual spurt or pretty predictable.  They have made temples more modular as well as other improvements in technology, so that has helped increase the rate.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/a-look-at-the-churchs-rapid-temple-growth-as-measured-against-president-nelsons-life-and-service?lang=eng

Edited September 21, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

https://www.thechurchnews.com/2022/5/16/23218167/charts-show-churchs-ongoing-growth-through-191-years-members-temples-stakes-wards

second chart, screen shot isn’t working

The real bump in building according to this took place in the late 90s, the same time period that EPA was established.  My guess both occurrences were in part caused by the increase of wealth during the early and mid 90s.  Temple building looks like a steady increase since 1998.

Added:  looks like last year there might have been a bump as well as these are pretty big jumps.  Have to have more years though to see if the increase is typical or unusual and I am too lazy to search.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/temples-operating-under-construction-or-announced-see-statuses-at-start-of-2022

But I do know the Church has increased spending in humanitarian areas significantly in the past ten years.  One could look at it as them trying to look less embarrassingly wealthy or leaders finally feeling comfortable enough with the Church’s level of wealth to start giving the big bucks and not just keep requiring members to contribute less and less to running the Church (no more budget or building funds, constant fundraising for any major youth activity, elimination of several special church welfare funds like one that helped members who couldn’t afford to travel to temples for their own sealings, etc****).  I do think the age of the top leaders has made a difference.  Half of the top 15 leaders of the Church were born before or during the Great Depression like my parents and I bet, like my parents, that affected their attitude towards money and savings.  While I hope the Church will never abandon the policies of N Eldon Tanner, who in mid 1960s iirc, finally stopped the in the black-in the red yo-yoing that had been going on since the beginning of the Church (he took over during a crisis where they thought they weren’t even going to be able to pay church employees the Church was in so much debt from too much building too fast), I do think there will be more focus on expanding the outreach of the Church, with temples intended to meet the current goal of a temple within three hours of any member on earth as well as a much expanded humanitarian presence.

****Personal income percentage-wise, members are required to give a lot less to the Church these days than when I was young, nowadays tithing and fast offerings are the only ones I am really hearing pushed and fast offerings are all given out, so required church income from members is just tithing these days unless you have a missionary.  Missionaries from lower income countries often receive a stipend or help is given to their families so they can spare the missionary’s contribution of labor from what I have heard, though that was a while ago.  My memory is that my parents set aside around 15% of their income to go to the Church and then would further contribute by spending hours and hours on fundraising and trips to the Church farm to pick apples, etc. plus they had to cover the complete cost of both of my brothers’ missions.  My dad joked he was getting blessed for his prior commitment because my younger brother went to the cheapest mission in the Church where it cost less than it would have for his keep than if he was at home.  Otoh, my eldest brother went to one of the most expensive at the time.

Edited September 21, 2023 by Calm

[Leaf474]

48 minutes ago, Calm said:

It has increased, but imo it’s probably a natural progression, the Church builds temples (and has at least since the 60’s I believe from what I remember being taught as a kid) based on number of tithing paying members in the area (tithe paying is a good indicator of temple usage) and how well it can afford to build them.  In the past local members had to contribute to the building fund for a temple.  The Church took over full costs when they achieved enough financial wealth.  The rate of temple building has increased over time.  This will have to do until I can find a chart that can better pinpoint whether current temple building is an unusual spurt or pretty predictable.  They have made temples more modular as well as other improvements in technology, so that has helped increase the rate.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/a-look-at-the-churchs-rapid-temple-growth-as-measured-against-president-nelsons-life-and-service?lang=eng

 

41 minutes ago, Calm said:

https://www.thechurchnews.com/2022/5/16/23218167/charts-show-churchs-ongoing-growth-through-191-years-members-temples-stakes-wards

second chart, screen shot isn’t working

The real bump in building according to this took place in the late 90s, the same time period that EPA was established.  My guess both occurrences were in part caused by the increase of wealth during the early and mid 90s.  Temple building looks like a steady increase since 1998.

Added:  looks like last year there might have been a bump as well as these are pretty big jumps.  Have to have more years though to see if the increase is typical or unusual and I am too lazy to search.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/temples-operating-under-construction-or-announced-see-statuses-at-start-of-2022

But I do know the Church has increased spending in humanitarian areas significantly in the past ten years.  One could look at it as them trying to look less embarrassingly wealthy or leaders finally feeling comfortable enough with the Church’s level of wealth to start giving the big bucks and not just keep requiring members to contribute less and less to running the Church (no more budget or building funds, constant fundraising for any major youth activity, elimination of several special church welfare funds like one that helped members who couldn’t afford to travel to temples for their own sealings, etc****).  I do think the age of the top leaders has made a difference.  Half of the top 15 leaders of the Church were born before or during the Great Depression like my parents and I bet, like my parents, that affected their attitude towards money and savings.  While I hope the Church will never abandon the policies of N Eldon Tanner, who in mid 1960s iirc, finally stopped the in the black-in the red yo-yoing that had been going on since the beginning of the Church (he took over during a crisis where they thought they weren’t even going to be able to pay church employees the Church was in so much debt from too much building too fast), I do think there will be more focus on expanding the outreach of the Church, with temples intended to meet the current goal of a temple within three hours of any member on earth as well as a much expanded humanitarian presence.

****Percentagewise, members are required to give a lot less to the Church these days than when I was young, nowadays tithing and fast offerings are the only ones I am really hearing pushed and fast offerings are all given out, so required church income from members is just tithing these days unless you have a missionary.  Missionaries from lower income countries often receive a stipend or help is given to their families so they can spare the missionary’s contribution of labor from what I have heard, though that was a while ago.

Thanks for your input, I appreciate your time ❤️

 

A quote from the link in your first post, there:

"...Elder Bednar acknowledged the Church’s 168 operating temples, adding that “forty-nine additional temples are under construction or have been announced."

 

About how long is it from announcement to dedication?

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

 

Thanks for your input, I appreciate your time ❤️

 

A quote from the link in your first post, there:

"...Elder Bednar acknowledged the Church’s 168 operating temples, adding that “forty-nine additional temples are under construction or have been announced."

 

About how long is it from announcement to dedication?

I was just talking about this with someone somewhere, going by memory which is not wide….average maybe 3 to 5 years.  I will look it up later, got to take a wee nap according to my eyes.  Everyone is gone and the quiet is making me very mellow.

[Leaf474]

@Calm, and whoever else is interested 🙂

The graph in the link you gave

https://www.thechurchnews.com/2022/5/16/23218167/charts-show-churchs-ongoing-growth-through-191-years-members-temples-stakes-wards

 

does indeed show a bump in the late '90s. It looks like it tops out at 170 active temples in 2021. The link I gave earlier would indicate that may be another 100 or 120 were announced or under construction. So let the graph run another 5 or 10 years, and there would be a pretty huge jump imo.

 

Again, looking for perceptions and input 🙂

[Leaf474]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

I was just talking about this with someone somewhere, going by memory which is not wide….average maybe 3 to 5 years.  I will look it up later, got to take a wee nap according to my eyes.  Everyone is gone and the quiet is making me very mellow.

That's cool, sweet dreams 😴

 

If it's 3 to 5 years from announcement to dedication, then we would expect to see a big bump in the graphs in the next few years 🙂

Edited September 21, 2023 by Leaf474

[Tacenda]

7 hours ago, Analytics said:

I don't believe that is true. Ensign Peak Advisors is a public charity in its own right.* The money in Ensign Peak Advisor's accounts is money that the Church donated to it. In all likelihood, the reason EPA was created immediately after the Time Mormons Inc. article was to get this money off of the Church's balance sheet. The idea was that if the Church needed to disclose its balance sheet for whatever reason, these assets would not show up. And if the Church happened to need any money, the public charity Ensign Peak Advisors would donate whatever was needed back to the Church. The Letter to an IRS Director explains this in detail, with documentation. 

_______

*more accurately, it claims to be a public charity. David Nielsen makes serious arguments that it is really a private foundation and should be taxed as such.

I think so too.

[Steve J]

On 9/20/2023 at 10:58 AM, Analytics said:

1. As a legal matter, I believe good arguments can be made that Ensign Peak Advisors is actually a Private Foundation and not an integrated auxiliary of the Church. If Eric Smith is concerned about the nuances and complexities of tax law being reported, he should examine in detail the arguments on both sides about whether or not it is a Private Foundation.
    
2. Given the extraordinary lengths the Church goes to in order to hide the details of its finances from the public and from its own membership, reporters should be given some slack about not understanding the details.
    
3. I don't believe Churches should be tax exempt. Beyond lobbying congress directly on this matter, it is valid for pundits and citizens to try to influence public opinion by using their free speech.
    
4. Arguing that the Church's actions are legal is an awfully low standard. Ultimately the Church is free to do whatever it legally wants with its money, but by the same token, pundits and citizens are free to criticize it. 

I don't believe Churches should be tax exempt.

 

🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️ 
 

 

[LoudmouthMormon]

Ooooh!  In other news, as I research retirement in a few years, I just discovered the loophole that will allow me to take a tax deduction when I pay my tithing!  Donating directly from my IRA makes it a qualified charitable distribution, which means it comes off my AGI, which lowers my taxes!

Can't wait!   The best part will be paying tithing when I'm no longer earning an income.  But another real good part will be drinking the tears of people who somehow think I'm cheating on my taxes, or that the church gets tax money, or whatever weird take they end up being mad about.

https://www.wsj.com/personal-finance/taxes/qcd-ira-qualified-chartiable-distribution-dc3c9a96?mod=hp_featst_pos4

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Ooooh!  In other news, as I research retirement in a few years, I just discovered the loophole that will allow me to take a tax deduction when I pay my tithing!  Donating directly from my IRA makes it a qualified charitable distribution, which means it comes off my AGI, which lowers my taxes!

Can't wait!   The best part will be paying tithing when I'm no longer earning an income.  But another real good part will be drinking the tears of people who somehow think I'm cheating on my taxes, or that the church gets tax money, or whatever weird take they end up being mad about.

https://www.wsj.com/personal-finance/taxes/qcd-ira-qualified-chartiable-distribution-dc3c9a96?mod=hp_featst_pos4

I wonder what other entities would count as a qualified charitable distribution. I have a charity that deducts from our bank account or credit card I think, monthly. Would that count?