Church sued again over how it uses tithing contributions from members

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I have had a few clients who are worth a lot of money.  I actually do feel sorry for them, as their days are spent obsessing over protecting what they have (from lawsuits, people wanting a handout, etc.) and growing it.

I don't know any "mega-wealthy" people, but I suspect that giving away large sums of money, particularly when a person wants to be conscientious about it, can be as stressful as any other major decision in life.

Thanks,

-Smac

Start with the members, don't try and get people to turn over their stocks, homes, land, you name it when they pass away. https://philanthropies.churchofjesuschrist.org/gift-planning

[MiserereNobis]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't know any "mega-wealthy" people, but I suspect that giving away large sums of money, particularly when a person wants to be conscientious about it, can be as stressful as any other major decision in life.

Perhaps they could have spared themselves the stress by not hoarding all that money to begin with. You know, they could have given it away while they made it. Maybe the Walton family could have paid their employees 5x the amount they did and then gave any excess to charity. Maybe Bezos could have paid his workers so much from the beginning and given them such great working conditions that they wouldn't have even thought about unionization. Maybe none of these extra costs could have been passed on to consumers because the owners weren't so greedy that they needed to become multi-billionaires. They could have been content as mere millionaires, with the exact same lifestyle.

On moral grounds I refuse to concede that trying to give away all this money that could have been avoided in the getting is the same as, say a UAW autoworker who just got a 20% raise deciding how much house to mortgage because of the current interest rates. It's not a major decision in life. It's dealing with the consequences of greed.

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

Forbes’s 2023 list of the world’s billionaires included 2,640 individuals with ten-figure fortunes that hold onto a combined wealth topping $12 trillion, an amount representing around 2 percent of global wealth

Current population: 8,045,311,447

2,640/current population = 0.0000003

Yet 2% of wealth.

That is obscene.

In Catholicism, there are 4 sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance. Number 3: oppression of the poor. Number 4: defrauding laborers of their wages.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Start with the members, don't try and get people to turn over their stocks, homes, land, you name it when they pass away. https://philanthropies.churchofjesuschrist.org/gift-planning

Like no one would ever appreciate having the info easy to find because they wanted to give to the rest of humanity when they no longer need the money themselves.  Sheesh…

[MiserereNobis]

I mean, this poor guy. What a stressful struggle to give to the poor. He actually, can you believe the sacrifice?, can’t have a margarita at 2:00 because he has a meeting since the FTC sued him for antitrust violations. 
 

Again, my heart breaks for the plight of the mega rich.

https://www.vogue.com/article/lauren-sanchez-december-2023-interview-profile

[Teancum]

On 11/13/2023 at 11:09 PM, let’s roll said:

Why would benchmarks and best practices for NFPs apply to churches?

Why wouldn't they?  EPA is like a large endowment fund really.  Why wouldn't the bench marks apply to it?

 

On 11/13/2023 at 11:09 PM, let’s roll said:

 

 

The officers and Directors who make decisions for NFPs do well to reference best practices and benchmarks for NFPs in making those decisions.

Yes. So?

 

On 11/13/2023 at 11:09 PM, let’s roll said:

 

 Churches believe they are doing the work of God under His direction.

Does the work of God include amassing massive wealth and not using it to relieve human suffering? Seems like most believing LDS here think so.  The hoops you all try to jump through to justify this is pretty funny.

 

On 11/13/2023 at 11:09 PM, let’s roll said:

 

 Thus, in accord with that belief, it is both proper and logical that church leaders would look to God for direction in all matters, including managing temporal assets, and follow that direction even when the direction doesn’t map to benchmarks and best practices for secular institutions.

So God is telling the LDS leaders to amass a fortune more than many nations states have in wealth and not use a their wealth more to relieve human suffering?  Is that really your argument?  Was God directing LDS leaders to break the bank in the late 50s and early 60s when they ran deficits due to an overly ambitious building program driven mostly by one leader?

On 11/13/2023 at 11:09 PM, let’s roll said:

All have the right to disagree with the belief of church leaders that they can, and do, receive Divine direction but, in the context of that belief, those who suggest that leaders and churches should always follow secular guidelines should understand why such a suggestion might be understood as a suggestion that the leaders follow man rather than God.

Your argument is really rather hollow and specious.  Essentially for you it is God's fault that the LDS leaders are continue to grow the wealth of the Church rather than say putting 5% of EPA funds towards relieving human suffering. That would only add $ billion or so more than to what the church already does for humanitarian aid. How odd those who claim to follow Jesus Christ would oppose such a thing.

[Teancum]

On 11/14/2023 at 9:55 AM, CV75 said:

If that is your CFR, it has nothing to with what I wrote, which was about your guessing, opinion and bias, not your basis for them. Tantrums do have a way of getting in the way of facts.

Yea it does.  And the only reason you won't provide it is because you can't. And your personal attack is quite stupid and rude. I am not having a tantrum at all. You saying this, more than once, is again, because you can't make a rational defense against my argument.  Just admit that your church ids more interested in amassing wealth than it is in relieving human suffering.  My argument, and that of @Analytics, is not that the church should not accumulate wealth in order to sustain itself in lean times. I have often argued it should.  But the level at which the church is doing it seems beyond reasonable means for lean times and that is based on benchmarks and best practices, none of which support having 20 time your annual operating needs stashed away.  If your morals, and that of the church leaders are quite fine with that so be it and just admit it.  But as the man who's church you claim to be said where your treasure is so is your heart, well we know where your heart is.

Edited November 15, 2023 by Teancum

[smac97]

30 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But the level at which the church is doing it seems beyond reasonable means for lean times and that is based on benchmarks and best practices, none of which support having 20 time your annual operating needs stashed away.

Do any of these "benchmarks and best practices" take into account long-term trends predicted for the growth of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in substantively less affluent areas of the world?

Or should this not matter in your view?

Thanks,

-Smac

[let’s roll]

54 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Your argument is really rather hollow and specious.  Essentially for you it is God's fault that the LDS leaders are continue to grow the wealth of the Church rather than say putting 5% of EPA funds towards relieving human suffering. That would only add $ billion or so more than to what the church already does for humanitarian aid. How odd those who claim to follow Jesus Christ would oppose such a thing.

My logic is spot on.  It speaks to the process.  Your argument doesn’t address that logic, instead it quibbles with the result of the process…you’ve made your dissatisfaction with the result clear in multiple posts.  I acknowledged your right to disagree with the result and acknowledge it again, but that disagreement doesn’t alter the fact that logic dictates that those managing funds dedicated to the work of God, take direction from God in managing the funds.  

My expectation is that those leaders seek such guidance and follow it.

Additionally, I believe God has invited all of His children to love one another and in doing so assist in relieving human suffering.  I spent the last 18 months overseas utilizing all of my time in trying to do so and am committed to continuing to do so now that I’ve returned home.  Since neither of us has any control over church assets, in our efforts to relieve human suffering we need to offer up what we do control…our time, talents and resources.

 

 

 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, let’s roll said:

My logic is spot on.  It speaks to the process.  Your argument doesn’t address that logic, instead it quibbles with the result of the process…you’ve made your dissatisfaction with the result clear in multiple posts.  I acknowledged your right to disagree with the result and acknowledge it again, but that disagreement doesn’t alter the fact that logic dictates that those managing funds dedicated to the work of God, take direction from God in managing the funds.  

My expectation is that those leaders seek such guidance and follow it.

Additionally, I believe God has invited all of His children to love one another and in doing so assist in relieving human suffering.  I spent the last 18 months overseas utilizing all of my time in trying to do so and am committed to continuing to do so now that I’ve returned home.  Since neither of us has any control over church assets, in our efforts to relieve human suffering we need to offer up what we do control…our time, talents and resources.

The substance of Huntsman's lawsuit is also - to borrow your wording - a "quibble."  The same goes for the lawsuit referenced in the OP.

The Church solicits donations from its members.

The Church stated that tithing funds would not be used to fund City Creek.

The meaning of "tithing" must therefore be adjudicated.

For Huntsman and/or the current plaintiffs to prevail, they must craft a definition of tithing that includes within it earnings from invested tithes.  Not only is this a farcical re-definition of the word, it will necessarily require the Court to examine and adjudicate competing claims of doctrine and interpretation thereof relating to tithing, and more broadly of church governance.  This is prohibited by the Ecclesiastical Abstention doctrine.

For Huntsman and/or the current plaintiffs to prevail, they must also impute the above-referenced definition onto Pres. Hinckley and other Church leaders who, when speaking about City Creek, referenced "tithing."  This also invites - requires - adjudication by the secular court of internal matters of doctrine and governance.   This is prohibited by the Ecclesiastical Abstention doctrine.

The plaintiffs in the current lawsuit want to take the "100%" statements by the Church about donations to its "Humanitarian Aid" and "Philanthropies" funds and attach them (the statements) to what the Church has said generally about all donations (such as tithes).  This switcheroo shouldn't work at all in a legal context, and really doesn't work in a legal context centering on allegations of fraud.  

A "quibble" is "an instance of the use of ambiguous, prevaricating, or irrelevant language or arguments to evade a point at issue."  Here, Huntsman and the plaintiffs in the current lawsuit are "quibbling" all over the place.  They want - they must - substantially alter and re-define the word and concept of "tithing" in ways that seriously depart from how the Church uses that term, and even how virtually all people use it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 15, 2023 by smac97

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Do any of these "benchmarks and best practices" take into account long-term trends predicted for the growth of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in substantively less affluent areas of the world?

Or should this not matter in your view?

Thanks,

-Smac

I do not know.  Is that the deciding factor? I am not an actuary.  And I have long said that I understand the need for reserves for the church due to the stark fact that its growth in the word is slim to none, and even decreasing in some parts of the more parts of the world where its members have substantive means.  So I get it.  Just how much?  What I have been advocating on this thread is similar to what @Analyticshas talked about. Something similar to Harvard.  Look at EPA like an endowment fund.  Do 5% per year for humanitarian aid.  Maybe more in the future depending on economic forces.  That would move the church to maybe $6 to $8 billion a year in aid and it would hardly touch the funds in EPA, as far as decreasing them, at all.  Adjust for market growth and decline.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Quote

But the level at which the church is doing it seems beyond reasonable means for lean times and that is based on benchmarks and best practices, none of which support having 20 time your annual operating needs stashed away.

Do any of these "benchmarks and best practices" take into account long-term trends predicted for the growth of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in substantively less affluent areas of the world?

Or should this not matter in your view?

I do not know. 

You are publicly faulting the Church ("the level at which the church is doing it seems beyond reasonable means...") because it does not meet "benchmarks and best practices," but you don't know if these metrics take into account long-term trends affecting the Church.

Before we proceed with publicly faulting the Church for not wearing the shoe, perhaps we ought to first make sure that the shoe fits.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Is that the deciding factor?

Perhaps not the (as in singular and sole) "deciding factor," but I think it is, or ought to be, one of several central "deciding" factors in examining the finances of the Church.  Could we agree on that?

There are likely other factors as well, some of which come immediately to mind:

• the Church's wealth being held in trust (as opposed to various "mega-wealthy" persons who are not really answerable to anyone for how they spend their own money);
• the Church's existence being of indefinite duration (as opposed to various "mega-wealthy" persons who have years or, at best, a few decades left before making decisions about the disposition of their wealth, and of actually disposing of it);
• the Church's leaders not using the wealth of the Church to live profligate, jet-set lifestyles (as opposed to various "mega-wealthy" persons who, in the main, do live such lifestyles (Warren Buffett and Carlos Slim Helu, being notable exceptions) (you have previously described this proposed factor as a "canard");
• the Church's obligation to fund, in perpetuity, its operating needs, which includes, but is not limited to, various forms of humanitarian / philanthropic / charitable relief, and which needs are considerable (see, e.g., here); 
• the Church's religious purposes and objectives, expenditures for which will likely always provoke criticism from folks who subjectively disagree with the value or need of such things (perhaps including the people formulating generalized "benchmarks and best practices"); and, perhaps most of all,
• the seemingly pervasive and chronic difficulty in finding sufficiently vetted, efficient and effective philanthropic/humanitarian organizations with which the Church could collaborate or to which the Church could provide financial or other forms of assistance.

What constitutes "best practices" for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is, I think, a pretty subjective endeavor.  

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I am not an actuary. 

Nor am I, but I don't think actuaries have the final say re: the finances of the Church.  

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

And I have long said that I understand the need for reserves for the church due to the stark fact that its growth in the word is slim to none, and even decreasing in some parts of the more parts of the world where its members have substantive means.  So I get it. 

I get that you claim you "get it," but then you turn around and apply "benchmarks and best practices" as if these things are axiomatically and rigidly applicable to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I question that.  

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Just how much?  What I have been advocating on this thread is similar to what @Analyticshas talked about. Something similar to Harvard.  Look at EPA like an endowment fund.  Do 5% per year for humanitarian aid. 

Yes, we keep coming back to this.  The Church should reflexively donate a percentage of its accumulated wealth, amounting to many billions of dollars, on an annualized basis, and it should do so with no regard for or consideration of the actual efficacy of such disbursements, or the competency and integrity of the recipients of such funds.  (You and Roger keep declining to say the quiet part out loud, so I'll do it, and even say it is bold font.)

I have been emphasizing this point for some time now.  I have repeatedly pointed to the profound dysfunction and profligate waste of untold billions of dollars California has spent on "homelessness" by using the same sort of reflexive, facile, feckless "Just Throw Money At It!" approach that underlies your and Roger's proposal.  I don't want the Church to simulate California's profoundly misguided approach to such things.

I have also repeatedly pointed to the efforts by the Church to carefully evaluate and "vet" any such organization prior to working with or donating to them.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Quote

In addition to responding to disasters across the globe, Church humanitarian funds have been used to provide food programs, vision care, maternal and newborn care, clean water and sanitation, immunizations, wheelchairs, and help for refugees.

However, reaching out and helping those in need is “a very complex endeavor,” he said.

The Church can’t just send out cash and checks to people, he said. “It has to be done in an organized way, and with follow up, with training, a lot of expertise and good partners. Otherwise, you just don’t get any results.”

Bishop Davies said the Church is careful to select humanitarian projects and partners that will make the best use of the Church’s funds. “We are very careful with the widow’s mite,” referring to the biblical parable by the Savior.

“We recognize that this comes from the faith of Church members and we want to make certain that they have the trust and confidence that their donations are being managed in a careful and thoughtful and very safe way for them and for the Church,” said Bishop Davies.

Leaders often ask themselves “what else can we do, where else can we go, who else can we work with,” said Bishop Waddell.  

Every time the Church reaches out, the objective is to bless both the giver and the receiver, added Bishop Caussé. So in addition to selecting good humanitarian projects, Church leaders are always mindful of providing service opportunities for Church members. “It’s not just a matter of money,” he said. It’s also done as members “devote time and resources and efforts to help others.”
...
As to the question, is the Church doing enough, Bishop Caussé said, “We hope we can do more and more in the future, and as the Church grows, there will be more opportunities for doing good.”

• "Latter-day Saint Charities carefully and thoroughly assesses each partner. 'The last thing you want to do is just give them money and then you really don’t know where it goes,' Bishop Davies said. 'So we have both missionaries and area staff on the ground, feet on the ground, who actually are there, they can see that food’s being distributed, or equipment, or schools are being built as part of our program.'"
• "Reaching out and helping those in need is 'a very complex endeavor.'"
• "The Church can’t just send out cash and checks to people, he said. 'It has to be done in an organized way, and with follow up, with training, a lot of expertise and good partners. Otherwise, you just don’t get any results.'"
• "Bishop Davies said the Church is careful to select humanitarian projects and partners that will make the best use of the Church’s funds. 'We are very careful with the widow’s mite.'"
• "We recognize that this comes from the faith of Church members and we want to make certain that they have the trust and confidence that their donations are being managed in a careful and thoughtful and very safe way for them and for the Church."
• “We hope we can do more and more in the future, and as the Church grows, there will be more opportunities for doing good.”

See also here:

Quote

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Calling yours a "reflexive, facile, feckless 'Just Throw Money At It!' approach" is admittedly a pretty hard critique, but as long as you and Roger insist on blithely tossing out an arbitrary 5% figure, with no substantive treatment of the foregoing issues, I think we will more or less remain at an impasse.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Maybe more in the future depending on economic forces.  That would move the church to maybe $6 to $8 billion a year in aid and it would hardly touch the funds in EPA, as far as decreasing them, at all.  Adjust for market growth and decline.

I think this is a profoundly unsubstantiated claim.  And one that does seem to account for the long-term operating expenses of the Church.  

I also think this comment attributed to D. Michael Quinn merits some attention:

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.

See also these 2022 comments by Elder Bednar:

Quote

Judson read questions to Elder Bednar that had been submitted before the event. One asked about the church’s financial reserves, including stocks, reported without confirmation from the church as having reached as much as $100 billion.

“If you take a look at the stock market, I don’t think it’s $100 (billion) anymore,” Elder Bednar said, prompting more laughter.

“I want to make one other comment about this,” Elder Bednar added. “People want to bang on the church and say, ‘Well, you’ve got all that money in reserve.’ Yeah, and it’s a good idea for other people to follow that example. We believe that there are — you can read in the Old Testament about seven years of famine and seven years of plenty. It’s a good idea to prepare. These undertakings that I’ve described are resource-consuming, not resource-generating. And a lot of people depend on the resource that we provide. And if things are different in the future than they are now, we think it’s provident and wise to prepare to maintain that kind of support in an uncertain economic environment.”

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 15, 2023 by smac97

[pogi]

3 hours ago, let’s roll said:

...logic dictates that those managing funds dedicated to the work of God, take direction from God in managing the funds.  

I'm not following the logic.  

It sounds like you trust that those managing the funds are taking directions from God, but logic doesn't require that conclusion.  Such logical conclusions require a kind of blind trust that I don't subscribe to. 

Edited November 15, 2023 by pogi

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

Quote

...logic dictates that those managing funds dedicated to the work of God, take direction from God in managing the funds.  

I'm not following the logic.  

Within the Latter-day Saint paradigm, the logic here (as in "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity") is spot-on.

Is there some other paradigm under which the Church should function?

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

It sounds like you trust that those managing the funds are taking directions from God, but logic doesn't require that conclusion.

Reposing trust in the Brethren is ultimately a matter of faith, sure.  Most things require some level of "trust."  But ours is a fairly reasoned and "logical" trust.  We can look at the operations of the Church and ascertain a number of things, namely, that the Brethren aren't getting rich, and that funds of the Church are being well-managed, that the Church is living within its means, and so on.

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

Such logical conclusions require a kind of blind trust that I don't subscribe to. 

I respectfully disagree.  The Brethren aren't looking for blind trust, nor is such trust required.

Thanks,

-Smac

[let’s roll]

16 minutes ago, pogi said:

I'm not following the logic.  

It sounds like you trust that those managing the funds are taking directions from God, but logic doesn't require that conclusion.  Such logical conclusions require a kind of blind trust that I don't subscribe to. 

The logic is straight forward as set out I’m my original post which is pasted below.  My comments are about the process, your concern seems to be about the results of that process.

Why would benchmarks and best practices for NFPs apply to churches?  The officers and Directors who make decisions for NFPs do well to reference best practices and benchmarks for NFPs in making those decisions.  Churches believe they are doing the work of God under His direction.  Thus, in accord with that belief, it is both proper and logical that church leaders would look to God for direction in all matters, including managing temporal assets, and follow that direction even when the direction doesn’t map to benchmarks and best practices for secular institutions.

All have the right to disagree with the belief of church leaders that they can, and do, receive Divine direction but, in the context of that belief, those who suggest that leaders and churches should always follow secular guidelines should understand why such a suggestion might be understood as a suggestion that the leaders follow man rather than God.

[pogi]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Within the Latter-day Saint paradigm, the logic here (as in "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity") is spot-on.

Is there some other paradigm under which the Church should function?

The Latter-day Saint paradigm doesn't allow for leaders who make mistakes or who mismanage finances?  

Logic doesn't require me to conclude that they are following the Lord in how money is being managed. 

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Reposing trust in the Brethren is ultimately a matter of faith, sure.  Most things require some level of "trust."  But ours is a fairly reasoned and "logical" trust.  We can look at the operations of the Church and ascertain a number of things, namely, that the Brethren aren't getting rich, and that funds of the Church are being well-managed, that the Church is living within its means, and so on.

Plenty of money managers are capable of managing funds in ways you describe above.  It is not a logical requirement for me to trust that they are taking directions from the Lord in how the funds are managed.  

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I respectfully disagree.  The Brethren aren't looking for blind trust, nor is such trust required.

Where did I say that the brethren are looking for blind trust, or that it is required?  Your disagreeing with something that I never said.

I never said anything about the brethren on the issue.  I am speaking to and addressing let's roll's claim that "logic dictates..."  

 

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

You are publicly faulting the Church ("the level at which the church is doing it seems beyond reasonable means...") because it does not meet "benchmarks and best practices," but you don't know if these metrics take into account long-term trends affecting the Church.

Before we proceed with publicly faulting the Church for not wearing the shoe, perhaps we ought to first make sure that the shoe fits.

Perhaps not the (as in singular and sole) "deciding factor," but I think it is, or ought to be, one of several central "deciding" factors in examining the finances of the Church.  Could we agree on that?

There are likely other factors as well, some of which come immediately to mind:

• the Church's wealth being held in trust (as opposed to various "mega-wealthy" persons who are not really answerable to anyone for how they spend their own money);
• the Church's existence being of indefinite duration (as opposed to various "mega-wealthy" persons who have years or, at best, a few decades left before making decisions about the disposition of their wealth, and of actually disposing of it);
• the Church's leaders not using the wealth of the Church to live profligate, jet-set lifestyles (as opposed to various "mega-wealthy" persons who, in the main, do live such lifestyles (Warren Buffett and Carlos Slim Helu, being notable exceptions) (you have previously described this proposed factor as a "canard");
• the Church's obligation to fund, in perpetuity, its operating needs, which includes, but is not limited to, various forms of humanitarian / philanthropic / charitable relief, and which needs are considerable (see, e.g., here); 
• the Church's religious purposes and objectives, expenditures for which will likely always provoke criticism from folks who subjectively disagree with the value or need of such things (perhaps including the people formulating generalized "benchmarks and best practices"); and, perhaps most of all,
• the seemingly pervasive and chronic difficulty in finding sufficiently vetted, efficient and effective philanthropic/humanitarian organizations with which the Church could collaborate or to which the Church could provide financial or other forms of assistance.

What constitutes "best practices" for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is, I think, a pretty subjective endeavor.  

Nor am I, but I don't think actuaries have the final say re: the finances of the Church.  

I get that you claim you "get it," but then you turn around and apply "benchmarks and best practices" as if these things are axiomatically and rigidly applicable to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I question that.  

Yes, we keep coming back to this.  The Church should reflexively donate a percentage of its accumulated wealth, amounting to many billions of dollars, on an annualized basis, and it should do so with no regard for or consideration of the actual efficacy of such disbursements, or the competency and integrity of the recipients of such funds.  (You and Roger keep declining to say the quiet part out loud, so I'll do it, and even say it is bold font.)

I have been emphasizing this point for some time now.  I have repeatedly pointed to the profound dysfunction and profligate waste of untold billions of dollars California has spent on "homelessness" by using the same sort of reflexive, facile, feckless "Just Throw Money At It!" approach that underlies your and Roger's proposal.  I don't want the Church to simulate California's profoundly misguided approach to such things.

I have also repeatedly pointed to the efforts by the Church to carefully evaluate and "vet" any such organization prior to working with or donating to them.  See, e.g., here:

Calling yours a "reflexive, facile, feckless 'Just Throw Money At It!' approach" is admittedly a pretty hard critique, but as long as you and Roger insist on blithely tossing out an arbitrary 5% figure, with no substantive treatment of the foregoing issues, I think we will more or less remain at an impasse.

I think this is a profoundly unsubstantiated claim.  And one that does seem to account for the long-term operating expenses of the Church.  

I also think this comment attributed to D. Michael Quinn merits some attention:

See also these 2022 comments by Elder Bednar:

Thanks,

-Smac

For the record, you are profoundly misunderstanding and misrepresenting my position. It’s clear to me that you don’t want to understand it either, so I won’t bother explaining how the straw man you are attacking here has nothing to do with what I’ve said or with what I believe. And that is okay.

If I’m wrong and you do want to understand where I’m coming from, let me know.

[pogi]

15 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

The logic is straight forward as set out I’m my original post which is pasted below.  My comments are about the process, your concern seems to be about the results of that process.

Why would benchmarks and best practices for NFPs apply to churches?  The officers and Directors who make decisions for NFPs do well to reference best practices and benchmarks for NFPs in making those decisions.  Churches believe they are doing the work of God under His direction.  Thus, in accord with that belief, it is both proper and logical that church leaders would look to God for direction in all matters, including managing temporal assets, and follow that direction even when the direction doesn’t map to benchmarks and best practices for secular institutions.

All have the right to disagree with the belief of church leaders that they can, and do, receive Divine direction but, in the context of that belief, those who suggest that leaders and churches should always follow secular guidelines should understand why such a suggestion might be understood as a suggestion that the leaders follow man rather than God.

My concerns are not about any process or the results of any process.  M concern is your suggestion that "dictates" that I should just conclude that "Churches" are following the direction of the Lord in money management matters, be that our church or any other.  

 

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, pogi said:

The Latter-day Saint paradigm doesn't allow for leaders who make mistakes or who mismanage finances?  

Having three and 12 at the top helps, but since LDS have had leaders who have mismanage in the past, my guess is they take this possibility into account and that may in part be why there appears to be a very large cushion.

Edited November 15, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

M concern is your suggestion that "dictates" that I should just conclude that "Churches" are following the direction of the Lord in money management matters, be that our church or any other.  

I don’t think he is suggesting that.  I think he is suggesting that the leaders of churches generally see themselves as accountable to God, not man, and therefore it is not going to work pointing to “best practices”, etc and telling them that should be their expected standard.  Their response will be to ignore you as irrelevant (as the arm of flesh representative in their view) or say ‘we follow a higher standard’, etc.

Edited November 15, 2023 by Calm

[Vanguard]

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

Logic doesn't require me to conclude that they are following the Lord in how money is being managed. 

I don't understand this statement. If we accept that the general leadership seeks the Lord's guidance in important matters pertaining to the Church, then why would it not be logical in the case of money matters to assume this?

50 minutes ago, pogi said:

It sounds like you trust that those managing the funds are taking directions from God, but logic doesn't require that conclusion.  Such logical conclusions require a kind of blind trust that I don't subscribe to. 

Again, I don't understand. If I trust they are taking directions from God, why wouldn't it be logical? And if not, what other logical position can one take if one trusts the leadership in this way?

My head spins... ; ) 

[pogi]

Just now, Vanguard said:

I don't understand this statement. If we accept that the general leadership seeks the Lord's guidance in important matters pertaining to the Church, then why would it not be logical in the case of money matters to assume this?

Again, I don't understand. If I trust they are taking directions from God, why wouldn't it be logical? And if not, what other logical position can one take if one trusts the leadership in this way?

My head spins... ; ) 

The logical conclusion for me is that church leaders, despite their best intentions, are not perfect and make mistakes.  They don't always follow the directions of the Lord in all matters.  They have been known to mismanage finances in the past, so why not in the future?  They have been known to misattribute things to the Lord that were later disavowed by other prophets.   At what point are we going to learn that prophets are fallible and that we should not just assume that the hand of the Lord is in every decision the Church makes/takes, be it financial or otherwise?

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

If we accept that the general leadership seeks the Lord's guidance in important matters pertaining to the Church, then why would it not be logical in the case of money matters to assume this?

Mistakes have been made in the past in apparently interpreting God’s Will, which was why corrections hopefully closer to God’s Will had to be undertaken (over expansion followed by Elder Tanner’s drastic and effective restraint).

Pogi could see what is happening now as closer to Elder Moyle’s missteps than to Elder Tanner’s likely inspired saving of the Church.

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

Quote

Within the Latter-day Saint paradigm, the logic here (as in "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity") is spot-on.

Is there some other paradigm under which the Church should function?

The Latter-day Saint paradigm doesn't allow for leaders who make mistakes or who mismanage finances?  

No.  Quite the contrary.  The "logic" of the Latter-day Paradigm calls on us to sustain the Brethren despite their flaws, not because of their absence.

Would you agree to the following propositions?

• Sustaining the Brethren requires some substantial level of "trust."  
• Such trust is not predicated on the Brethren being infallible.  
• The Brethren are not getting rich from the coffers of the Church, nor are they living profligate lifestyles.  
• The finances of the Church are, in the main, in good order.  
• The members of the Church can, in observing the operations of the Church's various programs and the generalized lives and lifestyles of the Brethren, reasonably and "logically" conclude that the Brethren are doing a good job of managing the financial affairs of the Church.  
• The foregoing conclusion, if reached, would not be based, as you put it, on "blind faith," but on observed phenomena and reasonable inferences derived therefrom.
• An assessment of the Brethren's conduct could, of course, be attributed to any number of things.  Within the Latter-day Saint paradigm, it's fairly reasonable, even "logical," to attribute - at least in part - the Brethren's effective management of the Church's finances to their seeking, and receiving, guidance from the Lord.

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

Logic doesn't require me to conclude that they are following the Lord in how money is being managed. 

Whether the Brethren "are following the Lord" is not a very empirically testable question.  And it's a matter of both reasoning (from evidence, observations, etc.), and faith.

Within the Latter-day Saint paradigm, I think it is "logical" to conclude that the Brethren are seeking to follow the Lord's guidance in their governance and administration of the Church.  Putting aside the evidence, I think they deserve a benefit of the doubt.  

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

Plenty of money managers are capable of managing funds in ways you describe above.  It is not a logical requirement for me to trust that they are taking directions from the Lord in how the funds are managed.  

Okay.  There is no requirement for this.

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

Quote

Such logical conclusions require a kind of blind trust that I don't subscribe to. 

Where did I say that the brethren are looking for blind trust, or that it is required?  Your disagreeing with something that I never said.

You brought up "blind trust."  I am disputing that it is, or ought to be, part of the "Latter-day Saint paradigm."  

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

I never said anything about the brethren on the issue.  I am speaking to and addressing let's roll's claim that "logic dictates..."  

Logic within the paradigm of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is, I think, the tacit premise of the comments from Let's Roll.

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Having three and 12 at the top helps, but since LDS have had leaders who have mismanage in the past, my guess is they take this into account and that may in part be why there appears to be a very large cushion.

I agree.  The only logical conclusion here is that they can learn from their historical mistakes of money mismanagement.    

[Vanguard]

1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

It sounds like you trust that those managing the funds are taking directions from God, but logic doesn't require that conclusion.  Such logical conclusions require a kind of blind trust that I don't subscribe to.

Ok. So then would it be more accurate for me to say - "I trust that those managing the funds are striving to take directions from God"? And if so, then it is entirely logical to hold this position that they have done so with these money matters regardless of whether God ultimately approves. And even if He didn't, how could we possibly know?

Edited November 15, 2023 by Vanguard