Church sued again over how it uses tithing contributions from members

[smac97]

36 minutes ago, Analytics said:

For the record, you are profoundly misunderstanding and misrepresenting my position.

Feel free to clarify.  

36 minutes ago, Analytics said:

It’s clear to me that you don’t want to understand it either,

Actually, I do want to understand.  It's not like I am withdrawing from the discussion and refusing to interact with or listen to what you have to say.

Speaking of which . . .

36 minutes ago, Analytics said:

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.

Convenient.

Teancum (summarizing you) : "Do 5% per year for humanitarian aid."

You (in response to my prior characterization) :

Quote

Quote

You have been advancing this "general rule of thumb" of "spend{ing} 5% of their principal on their philanthropic mission" for quite a while now.  I find it facile and unreasonable when you propose that it be deployed on the scale at which the Church and its finances operate....

As an example, let's compare the Church to Harvard University. Harvard University has about $72.7 Billion in financial assets, which might be about half of what the Church now has. Its total operating expenses are about $5.4 billion, which might be about a billion less than what the Church spends each year on its religious, educational, and philanthropic missions. 

In its 2022 financial report, Harvard University says "As a general rule, Harvard targets an annual endowment payout rate of 5.0 to 5.5% of market value."
...
Should the assets the Church has saved in Ensign Peak advisors be considered general reserves, or should they be considered an endowment? (If they are just "reserves", then a general rule of thumb is that they should be limited to about 1-2 years of expenses, e.g. they should be limited to about $10-15 billion. If they are endowment, then about 5% of the principal should be used to fund its mission on an annual basis.

And here:

Quote

To put this into perspective, a general rule of thumb is that on an annual basis, endowments should spend 5% of their principal on their philanthropic mission, and leave the remainder to grow with interest. To the extent investment returns average at least 5%, this level of giving will allow the endowment to last into perpetuity without another dime of new contributions.

And here:

Quote

I believe that EPA ought to be taxed as a private foundation. 

In short, the U.S. government expects foundations to use their assets to benefit society and it enforces this through section 4942 of the Internal Revenue Code, which requires private foundations to distribute 5% of the fair market value of their endowment each year for charitable purposes. 

And here:

Quote

What I would recommend they do is:

1. Come up with a plan to give away about 5% of the balance of their rainy day fund a year.
    
2. Comply with best practices of transparency so that the donating public tax payers (who are in fact subsidizing them) know what is going on and can make more informed decisions about donating and continuing tax-favored treatment.

And here:

Quote

It's wonderful that the Church donated $10 million to a charity. 

If they followed Harvard University's example and set the goal of giving away 5% of the principle in their endowment on an annual basis, they could give deserving causes $10 million a day, twice a day, every workday of the year, into perpetuity.

And here:

Quote

If a hedge-fund pretends it's a charity but doesn't do any charitable work, then it should be taxed as a hedge-fund, not a charity. If it wants to avoid taxes, just spend some of its money on something charitable. The law currently says 5%. Asking a "charity" with $100,000,000,000 in the bank and that makes $8,000,000,000 a year in income to spend a paltry $5,000,000,000 on doing some good in the world is a small ask in exchange for the tax-preferred status it somehow feels entitled to. 

And here:

Quote

The IRS doesn't want billionaires to dodge taxes by "donating" to private foundations that don't actually donate any money to charitable purposes. Because of that, there is a rule that says they must donate 5% of their principle to charity every year, otherwise it will be taxed on its investment income. 

If EPA doesn't want to donate 5% of its principal to charity purposes it doesn't have to, but it should be required to pay taxes on its income, just like any other hedge fund. 

Me (responding to Teancum) : "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."

By all means, disprove my assessment in bold above.  It was based off my generalized recollection of your various and repeated references to the 5%-of-reserve-funds-per-year proposal, which I have characterized as "Just Throw Money At It!"   But I am certainly open to correction.  So where are you qualifying your 5% proposal on "consideration of the actual efficacy of such disbursements, or the competency and integrity of the recipients of such funds"? 

Chapter and verse, please.

36 minutes ago, Analytics said:

And that is okay.

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

You are wrong.  I do want to understand where you're coming from, which is why I regularly read and respond to your posts.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 15, 2023 by smac97

[let’s roll]

22 minutes ago, pogi said:

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.  

 

Didn’t suggest that at all…I haven’t suggested that you or anyone else make any conclusion about whether the Lord is directing those who manage church funds.  Calm’s post captures my point and I commend it to you.

[smac97]

37 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

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.

This is a solid point.  The Brethren are, generally speaking, well-educated, well-experienced (in their respective professional spheres), and they also have nearly 200 years of the Church's history to survey and from which to derive lessons learned, errors to avoid, and principles to adopt and refine.

It would be fairly illogical to assume that the Brethren are not doing this.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 15, 2023 by smac97

[pogi]

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.

Straw-man.  

Why are you changing the subject and misattributing my comments to be about not sustaining the brethren?  One can sustain them without concluding that they follow the Lord in all things. 

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.

Non sequitur.

Once again, I am talking about the claim made that "logic dictates" that they are following the "direction of the Lord" in money management, not on whether or not they are "doing a good job of managing the financial affairs...".    Since I don't believe that hording hundreds of billions of dollars and building malls etc. is a good use of the Lord's money or the will of the Lord, I don't think they are doing a good job.  If we are strictly talking about making money, sure they are doing a good job.  

In regards to your last point.  The Lord's guidance is just one possible conclusion, I agree.  But to suggest that "reason dictates" that as the conclusion is not logical. 

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.

Right, so logic doesn't dictate that conclusion if it is not even empirically testable. 

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.  

Benefit of the doubt suggests that logic doesn't not dictate such a conclusion. 

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.

My problem is his suggestion that logic "dictates" such a conclusion.  No it doesn't.  Logic can lead to many other possible conclusions. 

Edited November 15, 2023 by pogi

[pogi]

8 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

Didn’t suggest that at all…I haven’t suggested that you or anyone else make any conclusion about whether the Lord is directing those who manage church funds.  Calm’s post captures my point and I commend it to you.

Ok, I will accept that. 

To be clear, my concern with your comment was not that you were attempting to force others to make such conclusions, but it came off as dismissive of all other logic that disagrees with "the fact that logic dictates":   

5 hours ago, let’s roll said:

...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.  

It is not a fact that logic dictates such a conclusion, even within the paradigm of the church.  Intent to follow the Lords' will in all things, doesn't mean that such is always the case.  There are plenty of other logical conclusions that can be made. 

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

And even if He didn't, how could we possible know?

By their fruits…

Speaking as someone who approves of them so far because I foresee great need in the near future and not because of the Second Coming, so it’s much less of a “what if” for me (climate change, church expansion into areas that will need much more help than hasn’t been needed as much since Utah was settled to create a stable faith community, tithing arrangements that might resemble what is happening in Australia in countries that are antagonistic to the Church) and instead is a when.  I see much of what the Church is doing now as preparation for the next stage, which will ramp up efforts and therefore costs (Pathways and other ward/stake run educational and counseling resources that have in the US been seen as provided by government, for example, but are not available in many areas in the world and yet are needed).  I get the sense that not only is the Church heading towards a more family centered spiritual study, but also wards are teaching more self reliance/development in other ways through aiding with education and the self reliance courses because this is what will be needed by church members more on a global basis.  The Church is not getting structured based on American style needs any more.

However, I can see why some look at the current situation and interpret it as allowing fruit to sit unpicked on the vine/tree.

Edited November 15, 2023 by Calm

[pogi]

30 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

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 possible know?

Yes, I wouldn't have a problem with that statement. 

Edited November 15, 2023 by pogi

[pogi]

59 minutes ago, Calm said:

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.

The only reason I am not upvoting this is because I don't know who Elder Moyle is or what missteps he took.  You very well may be right though. 

I personally believe that the church has no clue what to do with all the money they have.  The few expenses that have been made using Ensign Peaks funds are not indicative of good use/fruits to me.  And I certainly disapprove of the measures that were taken to keep the funds hidden.  That is all part of money management, and no, I don't think the Lord was directing that.  

 

[Teancum]

4 hours 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.

Yes correct.  This is a new deflection from you. But the numbers are easy.  Unless the church projects a significant loss in almost all its revenue it has enough now to maintain annual operations into perpetuity without touching a dime of the EPA fund. You do understand this don't you.  If the church never received another cent i contributions it has enough the maintain into perpetuity.

 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

It is an easy conclusion to make. The church can maintain itself now without any $$.  They don't need money.  Elder Bednar said as much here:

Quote

The Church doesn't need their money, but those people need the blessings that come from obeying God's commandments.  https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/elder-bednar-national-press-club-summary

So the church is already to the point you suggest-that long term trends need to be taken into account.

 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

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?

Of course there are other factors.

 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

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);

I am not comparing the church to a mega wealthy person. I am comparing it to large endowment funds for other charities and private foundations.

 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

• 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);

 

I am not comparing the church to a mega wealthy person. I am comparing it to large endowment funds for other charities and private foundations.  Other charities plan for indefinite duration as well.

 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

• 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");

It is a canard. I am not making this argument and I never have.  Same with @Analytics The argument is about a Church that claims to be that of Jesus Christ accumulating massive wealth and not putting more of towards relieving human suffering.

 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

• 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); 

Which is could and can do based on what reasonable suggestions that have been made.

 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

• 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,

I really don't object to what the church does with its money as far is its religious purposes goes. It just is plainly apparent that relieving human suffering is pretty low on its list when compared to what it does and what resources it has.

 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

• 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.

This  is a cop out or you think those who run the church are stupid or simpletons or cannot find the talent needed to accomplish such things in a proper and helpful way.  So sure just throw up your hands.  What a sorry argument this is that you continue to make.

 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Is it? Why?  Because you say so?  Because you want it to be? So it gives you reason to justify not doing more?  

 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

I did not say that.  Actuaries however can model out things like what the church may need in the future based on growth in low economic areas and a decrease in donors that have greater means.

 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

They apply to organizations that want to do best practices.  Those that don't can ignore them. There is no set rule.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

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.)

Your bolded part is not an argument I have made nor has Roger and it is a straw man.  Even a lie really.  I have never suggested that at all. I have suggested that the church start looking at ways to do more in a REPSONSIBLE way and in a way where the funds go to meet the best use to help the most people.  I recently referenced a group called Givewell when you asked about organizations I donate to and what they share about their financial data.  This is an organization that has figured out how  best to use funds to relieve human suffering and get the biggest bang for the $$ so to speak. If they can do it the church certainly can and they have the resources to hire talent to assist and to figure out the best way to go about it.

Now, you need to stop your comment you bolded above. If you use it again against me or Roger you are being dishonest. Neither of us have ever said that.  NOT ONCE.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

Straw man again.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

Never made that argument.  You say we make it. You are now lying. You need to stop.

 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

You are good at making excuses for the church of Jesus Christ to continue to hoard wealth. Ah well. Where your treasure is there your heart will be also.  If you are fine with that, well that reflects more on you than on me. I will continue to give to organizations that are more serious about putting money to relieve suffering.

Edited November 16, 2023 by Teancum

[Teancum]

On 11/14/2023 at 10:50 AM, Calm said:

The thread has turned personal, which is a waste of time for readers, so I hope those posting are enjoying it….

I have not made it personal.  Others have though.

[Teancum]

On 11/14/2023 at 12:43 PM, smac97 said:

And yet the only thing the critics seem to be saying, relative to charitable/humanitarian giving, is "Just Throw Money At It!"

No they don't/ You say they do but they don't.  You built this straw man. Stop using it. It is dishonest.

Edited November 16, 2023 by Teancum

[Teancum]

8 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.

So the guy who said not to lay up earthly treasures is telling your "prophets" to hoard massive wealth?  Sure. 🙄

Somehow I doubt it. Were they following God when they broke the bank on the 50s and 60s?  When the had to call on N Eldon Tanner to help get the church out of debt and start the process they have used to amass all this wealth?

8 hours ago, let’s roll said:

Additionally, I believe God has invited all of His children to love one another and in doing so assist in relieving human suffering.

I am happy to do so. That is why I give both my time and my donations to organizations that actually focus most if not all their efforts on relieving human suffering. I wish I could get back the  hundreds of thousands of $ I gave to the church since some of that went to help them builds their treasure on earth.  THen I could use it to do more to relieve human suffering. 

8 hours ago, let’s roll said:

 

 

 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.

 

 

 

Sure.  I can't control the church other than making sure they never get another $ of my money nor a minute of my time.

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

And yet the only thing the critics seem to be saying, relative to charitable/humanitarian giving, is "Just Throw Money At It!"

No they don't/

"Just Throw Money At It!" is a terse summary of what you and Analytics have been saying.  For quite a while.

You could prove me wrong, of course.  

Me (responding to you earlier) : "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."

Feel free to disprove my assessment in bold above.  It was based off my generalized recollection of your various and repeated references to the 5%-of-reserve-funds-per-year proposal, which I have characterized as "Just Throw Money At It!"   But I am certainly open to correction.  So where are you qualifying your 5% proposal on "consideration of the actual efficacy of such disbursements, or the competency and integrity of the recipients of such funds"? 

Chapter and verse, please.

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

YOu say they do but they don't. 

They (you) do. 

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

You built this straw man. Stop using it. It is dishonest.

I provided a number of instances here.  Neither you nor Roger has, to my knowledge, qualified or conditioned the 5% proposal on any consideration of of the actual efficacy of such disbursements, or the competency and integrity of the recipients of such funds.  That being the case, you are calling for the Church to give away billions of dollars in a Just Throw Money At It!" fashion.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

who Elder Moyle is or what missteps he took

It would be the other side of the coin; he had a massive building program going on the concept of “if you build it, they will come”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_D._Moyle

Elder Moyle was a good man that had a bit too much confidence in his own ability, probably because he was very successful in many things.

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V30N02_47.pdf

It was his enthusiasm that caused that last big debt crisis (they were thinking they weren’t going to be able to pay their employees even according to Michael Quinn, I can find the resource again…Dialogue or Sunstone…if anyone wants) in the Church and led to bringing in Eldon Tanner to fix it (he froze all spending, even with ongoing projects for a couple of years among other things)

Edited November 16, 2023 by Calm

[smac97]

38 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

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.

Yes correct.

I find that pretty unreasonable. 

38 minutes ago, Teancum said:

This is a new deflection from you.

Not really.  I have cited long-term trends affecting the Church a number of times.

38 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But the numbers are easy.

Well, no.  You have no way of discerning "numbers" relative to Church growth, increases and decreases relative to decline of membership numbers in developed nations (and the tithes of members), increases in membership numbers in less developed and/or impoverished areas (and the concomitant reduction in tithing revenue), the future economic viability of the Church's investments and holdings, and on and on and on.

38 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Unless the church projects a significant loss in almost all its revenue it has enough now to maintain annual operations into perpetuity without touching a dime of the EPA fund. You do understand this don't you.  If the church never received another cent i contributions it has enough the maintain into perpetuity.

I think this is a profoundly unsubstantiated claim. 

38 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

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

It is an easy conclusion to make.

I know.  Easiness is a key feature of armchair quarterbacking.

38 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The church can maintain itself now without any $$.  They don't need money.  Elder Bednar said as much here:

Quote

The Church doesn't need their money, but those people need the blessings that come from obeying God's commandments.  https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/elder-bednar-national-press-club-summary

You are mischaracterizing Elder Bednar's comments.  He was not speaking of tithes generally, but rather those from members living "in abject poverty":

Quote

Given the significant financial strain that tithing is for those in war or in abject poverty, is there any discussion within the Church about not requiring that for people in those situations or at least tithing only what is left after paying for housing, food and other necessities?

“President Hinckley stood at this pulpit in 2000 and made reference to the law of tithing. I remember watching him teach in impoverished areas of the country and promising the people: the pathway out of poverty is keeping the commandments of God, including tithing. The Church doesn’t need their money, but those people need the blessings that come from obeying God’s commandments.”

We all know that many areas are net consumers of tithes, not producers.  That would include areas with members living "in war or in abject poverty."

38 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

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?

Of course there are other factors.

Sounds like we agree on this point, at least in principle.  That's something.

So what "other factors" do you think are, or ought to be, legitimate points to be raised in discussions such as this?

38 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

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);

I am not comparing the church to a mega wealthy person.

I am: Billionaire Philanthropists Have Discovered a New Way to Give Away Their Fortunes

I think this deserves some attention and discussion.

38 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I am comparing it to large endowment funds for other charities and private foundations.

I think we can accommodate comparisons to both "billionaire philanthropists" and "charities and private foundations" with "large endowment funds."

38 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

• 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);

I am not comparing the church to a mega wealthy person. I am comparing it to large endowment funds for other charities and private foundations.  Other charities plan for indefinite duration as well.

Right.  But this point is less about what we're comparing the Church to, and more about "several central 'deciding' factors in examining the finances of the Church," which you seemed to agree are on the table.

38 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

• 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");

It is a canard.

I think it is highly relevant.  Both "mega-wealthy" and many in positions of power in "charities and private foundations" live profligate lifestyles.  That the Brethren are not doing this undercuts a variety of implicit assumptions about the Church and its wealth.  

38 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I am not making this argument and I never have.  Same with @Analytics 

I am not saying you have made an argument on this point.  To the contrary, you and Roger seem to uniformly dismiss and ignore this point.

38 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The argument is about a Church that claims to be that of Jesus Christ accumulating massive wealth and not putting more of towards relieving human suffering.

And implicit in this "argument" are a number of assumptions about the Church.  

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.

You and I have discussed this before:

Quote

Quote

What does it matter that the leaders are not enriching themselves?

It matters quite a bit.  Context.  The corrupting effect of large sums of money on religious leaders is broadly inferred or assumed.  We've seen many instances of serious misconduct of religious leaders who use their positions and influence to enrich themselves.  Kenneth Copeland.  Creflo Dollar.  Ken Hagin.  Benny Hinn.  Robert Tilton.

Living large on the Widow's Mite, as it were.

But that's not happening with the Brethren.  That's not happening.

That this is not happening is, I think, an argument in favor of the overall character and decency of the people you so regularly disparage.

38 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

• 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); 

Which is could and can do based on what reasonable suggestions that have been made.

Again, this is a profoundly unsubstantiated claim.  You have come nowhere near establishing it, nor has Roger.

38 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

• 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,

I really don't object to what the church does with its money as far is its religious purposes goes.

Unless what it "does with its money as far as its religious purposes" involves saving substantial sums against future potential difficulties.

38 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It just is plainly apparent that relieving human suffering is pretty low on its list when compared to what it does and what resources it has.

This is one of the reasons why I keep emphasizing the point above about the Brethren not getting rich. 

38 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

• 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.

This  is a cop out

The only copout I see is your refusal to address or acknowledge the foregoing point.

I have repeatedly substantiated this point with citations to statements from the Presiding Bishopric, with articles and news items about the substantial levels of corruption / mismanagement / graft that frequently occur in the NFP industry, with comparisons to the the mess in California, and - most recently - with an article describing how "mega-wealthy" philanthropists are encountering the same sorts of issues that have been noted by the Presiding Bishopric.

I don't think you have addressed any of this.  The Presiding Bishopric have boots on the ground and extensive experience with administering the charitable programs of the Church.  As between their informed statements and your armchair quarterbacking, I'll go with the former.

38 minutes ago, Teancum said:

or you think those who run the church are stupid or simpletons or cannot find the talent needed to accomplish such things in a proper and helpful way. 

I think you are really out of touch, T.  I think you have no idea as to the actual, boots-on-the-ground, in-real-life complexities and difficulties involved in administering the Church's humanitarian efforts on an international scale.  

You are reminding me of a former client of mine who had a grievance about mining claims, but who simply refused to work with me in sorting out the logistical challenges involved in pursuing his claims through litigation.  He would randomly call me, ask what is happening with "the lawsuit," and then demand that I just "tell the court" his story, or to hurry up and schedule a trial so that he could have his day in court.  When I tried to explain the logistics and timing and procedures for such things, he would complaint that I was complicating what is really a very simple thing.  He simply refused to address the complexities of what I was trying to do with his case.  He essentially pretended as if these complexities didn't even exist.  And he eventually became angry at me and cynical about the legal system in general, calling it corrupt and whatnot.  

I think you are doing something similar here.

38 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So sure just throw up your hands. 

I am not doing this, nor is the Presiding Bishopric, or the other Brethren, or the Church.

I think you are mired in a form of magical thinking.  "Just hire people and get it done!  Find talent!  Accomplish such things in a proper and helpful way!  Just throw money at it!"

Is it perhaps possible that the Church is trying hard to do what you seem to want it to do, but that you are not aware of the massive logistical challenges involved in coordinating and funding international humanitarian efforts in thousands of projects in hundreds and hundreds of areas of dozens and dozens of countries?  That these challenges, you so airily dismiss as a "cop out," are being experienced not only by the Church, but by many other groups trying to provide humanitarian relief?

38 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

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

Is it? Why?  Because you say so?  Because you want it to be?

If there were an objective set of "best practices" manifestly applicable to the Church, you and yours would point it out.  And yet the best you can do is point to  generalized "benchmarks and best practices" which may, in practical terms, have only partial or marginal application to the Church.

38 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So it gives you reason to justify not doing more?  

I think the Church is doing a lot to help their fellow man.  Billions of dollars, millions of man-hours, and so on.

I think the Church can do more, and it is trying very hard to do more.

And yet you reduce us to this: "It just is plainly apparent that relieving human suffering is pretty low on its list when compared to what it does and what resources it has."

There is no organization on the planet that could ever live up to your unreasoned and ignorant and hostile expectations.

38 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

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.

They apply to organizations that want to do best practices. 

They do?  Why?  Because you say so?

38 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Those that don't can ignore them. There is no set rule.

"There is no set rule."  That's pretty much what I have said.

Your vague reference to "benchmarks and best practices" is a pretty subjective thing.

38 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

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.)

Your bolded part is not an argument I have made nor has Roger and it is a straw man.  Even a lie really. 

Fine.  Point out, please, chapter and verse where you have conditioned your 5% proposal so as to include "regard for or consideration of the actual efficacy of such disbursements, or the competency and integrity of the recipients of such funds."

38 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I have never suggested that at all.

Sure you have.  Just a minute ago you dismissed this as a "cop out."  You persistently get into Armchair Quarterback mode and insult the Church for not "find{ing} the talent needed to accomplish such things in a proper and helpful way," for "not putting more of towards relieving human suffering," for having "relieving human suffering" "pretty low on its list," and so on.

AFAICS, you refuse to even acknowledge the existence of the logistical challenges I am noting above, let along factor them in to your 5% proposal.  If I am wrong on that, then point out where you have done so.  

38 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I have suggested that the church start looking at ways to do more in a REPSONSIBLE way and in a way where the funds go to meet the best use to help the most people. 

Classic armchair quarterbacking.  

I am reminded of this quote from Theodore Roosevelt (often aptly referred to as "It Is Not the Critic Who Counts") :

Quote

“It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.”

—Theodore Roosevelt
Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910

"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better."  

Yep.

38 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I recently referenced a group called Givewell when you asked about organizations I donate to and what they share about their financial data.  This is an organization that has figured out how  best to use funds to relieve human suffering and get the biggest bang for the $$ so to speak.

Well, not really.  It vets other groups:

Quote

About GiveWell

 

GiveWell is a nonprofit dedicated to finding outstanding giving opportunities and publishing the full details of our analysis to help donors decide where to give.

We recommend a list of top charities to donors. We also offer donors the option to give to our giving funds. GiveWell is focused on finding a small number of outstanding giving opportunities, not on reviewing as many charities—or as many causes—as possible.

We don't focus solely on financials, such as assessing administrative or fundraising costs. Instead, we conduct in-depth research to determine how much good a given program accomplishes (in terms of lives saved, lives improved, etc.) per dollar spent.

Boy, that sure sounds like what the Church is trying to do, but then the Church also goes out and does what GiveWell researches and write about.

38 minutes ago, Teancum said:

If they can do it the church certainly can and they have the resources to hire talent to assist and to figure out the best way to go about it.

I think there are orders of magnitude of differences between GiveWell and the Church.  They are both pursuing the same objectives, with the former just doing it on a vastly smaller and more manageable scale.

38 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

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.)

Now, you need to stop your comment you bolded above.

As soon as you point me to where you are presenting your 5% proposal with "regard for or consideration of the actual efficacy of such disbursements, or the competency and integrity of the recipients of such funds," I will consider your request.  Until then, I will continue to point out your proposal's unreasoned and facile features.

38 minutes ago, Teancum said:

If you use it again against me or Roger you are being dishonest. Neither of us have ever said that.  NOT ONCE.

Yes you have.  Over and over and over again.  

Again, prove me wrong.  Show me where you are conditioning this 5% proposal on "regard for or consideration of the actual efficacy of such disbursements, or the competency and integrity of the recipients of such funds."

38 minutes ago, Teancum said:

You are good at making excuses for the church of Jesus Christ to continue to hoard wealth.

Well, no.  I am acknowledging practical realities, including the substantive limitations of your "Just Throw Money At It!" proposal.

38 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Ah well. Where your treasure is there your heart will be also.

My heart is not in or with the wealth of the Church, as I have no access to or stewardship over it.

I am grateful that the members of the Church have been so generous with their donations to the Church.

I am grateful that the leaders of the Church have, for many decades now, been wise and prudent stewards of the Church's funds.

I am grateful that part of this stewardship has resulted in the Church having substantial financial reserves.

I am grateful that the Presiding Bishopric and other outlets of the Church are providing news and updates on the Church's humanitarian efforts.

I am grateful that the Church is substantially increasing these efforts year over year.

I am grateful that the Church is prudent and cautious in how it vets and works with other groups and organizations on humanitarian efforts.

I am grateful that we live in a country which protects organizations like the Church.  

I love the Church.  It ain't perfect, but it is overwhelmingly good and decent.  I love it in part because of its failings and shortcomings.  Again, from T. Roosevelt:

Quote

The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.

I understand that you want to characterize the Church as this incorrigibly miserly thing.  You have been quite explicit in your denunciations.  But I think your disparagements are, broadly speaking, not based on sound reasoning, evidence or analysis.

38 minutes ago, Teancum said:

If you are fine with that, well that reflects more on you than on me. I will continue to give to organizations that are more serious about putting money to relieve suffering.

I hope nobody will fault or second-guess your philanthropic pursuits.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

The only reason I am not upvoting this is because I don't know who Elder Moyle is or what missteps he took.

This may be helpful.

5 hours ago, pogi said:

I personally believe that the church has no clue what to do with all the money they have. 

I think the Church has all sorts of ideas as to "what do do with all the money" it has (I'm not sure what you mean by "they").  I think the Church faces substantive challenges in deploying its financial resources to their fullest potential, including:

A) Limitations on the Church's experience/expertise in directly administering humanitarian efforts.   It is unreasonable to expect the Church to have the same sorts of talent pools, skill sets, logistical means, etc. as say, the Red Cross / Red Crescent.  The Church cannot be all things to all people.

B) Limitations on the Church's ability to find, vet and collaborate with competent, efficient, effective NGOs and such on a scale commensurate with the wealth of the Church.  Put another way, the Church has more money to spend than credibly-vetted organizations and projects to spend it on.

C) Unreasonable expectations and demands from bystanders and armchair quarterbacks, most of whom are hardly qualified to speak intelligently on the Church's efforts, how these efforts are being made, etc.

5 hours ago, pogi said:

The few expenses that have been made using Ensign Peaks funds are not indicative of good use/fruits to me.  And I certainly disapprove of the measures that were taken to keep the funds hidden.  That is all part of money management, and no, I don't think the Lord was directing that.  

Is there a possibility that the overall efforts by the Brethren over the past many decades to manage the financial affairs of the Church have been "inspired?"  That such inspiration included the creation of Ensign Peak?  And that the "measures that were taken" that are giving you heartburn are relatively limited exceptions (errors) to what is overall a good and "inspired" efforts by the Brethren?

"Inspiration" is seldom an all-or-nothing proposition.  I spent two years as a missionary and five years as a bishop, and had many experiences which, taken together, made me feel like I was functioning under the influence of inspiration.  But sometimes I messed up.  My temper got the better of me, or fatigue, or inattention, etc.  There were instances where "the Lord was {not} directing" my efforts, but these were much more an exception than the rule.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

Me (responding to Teancum) : "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."

By all means, disprove my assessment in bold above.

I never believed, said, or thought that the Church or anybody else should ever donate a single penny "with no regard for or consideration of the actual efficacy of such disbursements, or the competency and integrity of the recipients of such funds." That is totally made up.

In fact, I believe the opposite: every individual and every institution should be conscientious and diligent with their donations to be sure that they will be put to good use.

And that is why organizations that receive donations ought to be transparent: they need to be transparent to allow donors to perform their due diligence when making decisions about how to donate.

I hope you see the irony here. If somebody wants to donate to the Church, they're certainly donating to an organization with high integrity, and the money won't be used to support opulent lifestyles of Church leaders. Of course. But on the margin, it won't be used to support the Church's  religious, educational, or charitable missions, either. Rather, it will be used to buy stocks and bonds to be saved for a hypothetical rainy day. I agree that the worlds problems won't be solved by just throwing money at it. But they won't be solved by donating money to Ensign Peak Advisor's stock and bond portfolio, either.

And that is the real issue that is in our respective circles of control. On this narrow issue we agree about what the Church should do (i.e. only donate to organizations that will put the money to good use). Should individuals follow that same advice? If so, they shouldn't donate it to the Church.

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

It was based off my generalized recollection of your various and repeated references to the 5%-of-reserve-funds-per-year proposal, which I have characterized as "Just Throw Money At It!"   But I am certainly open to correction.  So where are you qualifying your 5% proposal on "consideration of the actual efficacy of such disbursements, or the competency and integrity of the recipients of such funds"? 

I wasn't addressing the question of how organizations should spend money. I was addressing the question of what's the proper balance between saving and spending. Those are two totally different issues. Just because Harvard University endeavors to distribute 5.5% of their endowment every year doesn't mean that they subscribe to your imaginary  "just throw money at it" philosophy and think the 5.5% distributions should be made "with no regard for or consideration of the actual efficacy of such disbursements, or the competency and integrity of the recipients of such funds."

[Teancum]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Just Throw Money At It!" is a terse summary of what you and Analytics have been saying.  For quite a while.

No it is not.  It is a straw man.  And now a lie.  You insert this  constantly in your arguments.  It is something  neither of us have said. You need to stop lying about it.

 

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

You could prove me wrong, of course.  

I don't need to prove a straw man wrong.  I never have argues this. So when did you stop killing kittens?

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

Me (responding to you earlier) : "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."

Feel free to disprove my assessment in bold above.  It was based off my generalized recollection of your various and repeated references to the 5%-of-reserve-funds-per-year proposal, which I have characterized as "Just Throw Money At It!"   But I am certainly open to correction.  So where are you qualifying your 5% proposal on "consideration of the actual efficacy of such disbursements, or the competency and integrity of the recipients of such funds"? 

Chapter and verse, please.

No.  YOU SAY WE SAY THIS. When we never have.  Your unmitigated persistence in attributing this to us is dishonest.  SO CFR to you that either of us have ever said or argued this.  In fact I have said the opposite of this. I have argued that the church could set up a group of smart people to deploy its potentially larger humanitarian aid in a responsible and helpful way and in a way where it could have the most impact. You are the one who thinks the church leaders and staff  would be a bunch of imbeciles and unable to figure this out.

So you do chapter and verse. CFR that I have made this argument. Same for @Analytics

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

They (you) do. 

I provided a number of instances here.  Neither you nor Roger has, to my knowledge, qualified or conditioned the 5% proposal on any consideration of of the actual efficacy of such disbursements, or the competency and integrity of the recipients of such funds.  That being the case, you are calling for the Church to give away billions of dollars in a Just Throw Money At It!" fashion.

Thanks,

-Smac

Good lord.  None of these demonstrate what that we have said what you are attempting to put in our mouths.  Arguing working towards using 5% of whatever the EPA fund is annually, like most large endowment funds to, is NOT arguing to just throw money at it. It is arguing this is a reasonable sum to work towards and then doing it in a responsible way.  It is dishonest of you to take the 5% comments and extrapolate it into your straw man.  You need  to stop  it.

[Teancum]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

I find that pretty unreasonable. 

Not really.  I have cited long-term trends affecting the Church a number of times.

Well, no.  You have no way of discerning "numbers" relative to Church growth, increases and decreases relative to decline of membership numbers in developed nations (and the tithes of members), increases in membership numbers in less developed and/or impoverished areas (and the concomitant reduction in tithing revenue), the future economic viability of the Church's investments and holdings, and on and on and on.

I think this is a profoundly unsubstantiated claim. 

I know.  Easiness is a key feature of armchair quarterbacking.

You are mischaracterizing Elder Bednar's comments.  He was not speaking of tithes generally, but rather those from members living "in abject poverty":

We all know that many areas are net consumers of tithes, not producers.  That would include areas with members living "in war or in abject poverty."

Sounds like we agree on this point, at least in principle.  That's something.

So what "other factors" do you think are, or ought to be, legitimate points to be raised in discussions such as this?

I am: Billionaire Philanthropists Have Discovered a New Way to Give Away Their Fortunes

I think this deserves some attention and discussion.

I think we can accommodate comparisons to both "billionaire philanthropists" and "charities and private foundations" with "large endowment funds."

Right.  But this point is less about what we're comparing the Church to, and more about "several central 'deciding' factors in examining the finances of the Church," which you seemed to agree are on the table.

I think it is highly relevant.  Both "mega-wealthy" and many in positions of power in "charities and private foundations" live profligate lifestyles.  That the Brethren are not doing this undercuts a variety of implicit assumptions about the Church and its wealth.  

I am not saying you have made an argument on this point.  To the contrary, you and Roger seem to uniformly dismiss and ignore this point.

And implicit in this "argument" are a number of assumptions about the Church.  

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.

You and I have discussed this before:

That this is not happening is, I think, an argument in favor of the overall character and decency of the people you so regularly disparage.

Again, this is a profoundly unsubstantiated claim.  You have come nowhere near establishing it, nor has Roger.

Unless what it "does with its money as far as its religious purposes" involves saving substantial sums against future potential difficulties.

This is one of the reasons why I keep emphasizing the point above about the Brethren not getting rich. 

The only copout I see is your refusal to address or acknowledge the foregoing point.

I have repeatedly substantiated this point with citations to statements from the Presiding Bishopric, with articles and news items about the substantial levels of corruption / mismanagement / graft that frequently occur in the NFP industry, with comparisons to the the mess in California, and - most recently - with an article describing how "mega-wealthy" philanthropists are encountering the same sorts of issues that have been noted by the Presiding Bishopric.

I don't think you have addressed any of this.  The Presiding Bishopric have boots on the ground and extensive experience with administering the charitable programs of the Church.  As between their informed statements and your armchair quarterbacking, I'll go with the former.

I think you are really out of touch, T.  I think you have no idea as to the actual, boots-on-the-ground, in-real-life complexities and difficulties involved in administering the Church's humanitarian efforts on an international scale.  

You are reminding me of a former client of mine who had a grievance about mining claims, but who simply refused to work with me in sorting out the logistical challenges involved in pursuing his claims through litigation.  He would randomly call me, ask what is happening with "the lawsuit," and then demand that I just "tell the court" his story, or to hurry up and schedule a trial so that he could have his day in court.  When I tried to explain the logistics and timing and procedures for such things, he would complaint that I was complicating what is really a very simple thing.  He simply refused to address the complexities of what I was trying to do with his case.  He essentially pretended as if these complexities didn't even exist.  And he eventually became angry at me and cynical about the legal system in general, calling it corrupt and whatnot.  

I think you are doing something similar here.

I am not doing this, nor is the Presiding Bishopric, or the other Brethren, or the Church.

I think you are mired in a form of magical thinking.  "Just hire people and get it done!  Find talent!  Accomplish such things in a proper and helpful way!  Just throw money at it!"

Is it perhaps possible that the Church is trying hard to do what you seem to want it to do, but that you are not aware of the massive logistical challenges involved in coordinating and funding international humanitarian efforts in thousands of projects in hundreds and hundreds of areas of dozens and dozens of countries?  That these challenges, you so airily dismiss as a "cop out," are being experienced not only by the Church, but by many other groups trying to provide humanitarian relief?

If there were an objective set of "best practices" manifestly applicable to the Church, you and yours would point it out.  And yet the best you can do is point to  generalized "benchmarks and best practices" which may, in practical terms, have only partial or marginal application to the Church.

I think the Church is doing a lot to help their fellow man.  Billions of dollars, millions of man-hours, and so on.

I think the Church can do more, and it is trying very hard to do more.

And yet you reduce us to this: "It just is plainly apparent that relieving human suffering is pretty low on its list when compared to what it does and what resources it has."

There is no organization on the planet that could ever live up to your unreasoned and ignorant and hostile expectations.

They do?  Why?  Because you say so?

"There is no set rule."  That's pretty much what I have said.

Your vague reference to "benchmarks and best practices" is a pretty subjective thing.

Fine.  Point out, please, chapter and verse where you have conditioned your 5% proposal so as to include "regard for or consideration of the actual efficacy of such disbursements, or the competency and integrity of the recipients of such funds."

Sure you have.  Just a minute ago you dismissed this as a "cop out."  You persistently get into Armchair Quarterback mode and insult the Church for not "find{ing} the talent needed to accomplish such things in a proper and helpful way," for "not putting more of towards relieving human suffering," for having "relieving human suffering" "pretty low on its list," and so on.

AFAICS, you refuse to even acknowledge the existence of the logistical challenges I am noting above, let along factor them in to your 5% proposal.  If I am wrong on that, then point out where you have done so.  

Classic armchair quarterbacking.  

I am reminded of this quote from Theodore Roosevelt (often aptly referred to as "It Is Not the Critic Who Counts") :

"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better."  

Yep.

Well, not really.  It vets other groups:

Boy, that sure sounds like what the Church is trying to do, but then the Church also goes out and does what GiveWell researches and write about.

I think there are orders of magnitude of differences between GiveWell and the Church.  They are both pursuing the same objectives, with the former just doing it on a vastly smaller and more manageable scale.

As soon as you point me to where you are presenting your 5% proposal with "regard for or consideration of the actual efficacy of such disbursements, or the competency and integrity of the recipients of such funds," I will consider your request.  Until then, I will continue to point out your proposal's unreasoned and facile features.

Yes you have.  Over and over and over again.  

Again, prove me wrong.  Show me where you are conditioning this 5% proposal on "regard for or consideration of the actual efficacy of such disbursements, or the competency and integrity of the recipients of such funds."

Well, no.  I am acknowledging practical realities, including the substantive limitations of your "Just Throw Money At It!" proposal.

My heart is not in or with the wealth of the Church, as I have no access to or stewardship over it.

I am grateful that the members of the Church have been so generous with their donations to the Church.

I am grateful that the leaders of the Church have, for many decades now, been wise and prudent stewards of the Church's funds.

I am grateful that part of this stewardship has resulted in the Church having substantial financial reserves.

I am grateful that the Presiding Bishopric and other outlets of the Church are providing news and updates on the Church's humanitarian efforts.

I am grateful that the Church is substantially increasing these efforts year over year.

I am grateful that the Church is prudent and cautious in how it vets and works with other groups and organizations on humanitarian efforts.

I am grateful that we live in a country which protects organizations like the Church.  

I love the Church.  It ain't perfect, but it is overwhelmingly good and decent.  I love it in part because of its failings and shortcomings.  Again, from T. Roosevelt:

I understand that you want to characterize the Church as this incorrigibly miserly thing.  You have been quite explicit in your denunciations.  But I think your disparagements are, broadly speaking, not based on sound reasoning, evidence or analysis.

I hope nobody will fault or second-guess your philanthropic pursuits.

Thanks,

-Smac

You are right SMAC.  The church can't increase its donations at all in a responsible way.  They should just continue to give an amount that is small in comparison to it's wealth.  You can continue to jump through your mental hoops to assuage your conscience that the church uses a fair amount of your contributions and my prior contributions to accumulate and hoard wealth. It does a terrific job at this.  It certainly is laying up treasures on earth.  I have no desire to debate this with you any longer as you egregiously misrepresent what I say in a dishonest way.  I will continue to give my paltry donations to places that really do seem to want to make a difference in relieving human suffering.

[Tacenda]

44 minutes ago, Teancum said:

You are right SMAC.  The church can't increase its donations at all in a responsible way.  They should just continue to give an amount that is small in comparison to it's wealth.  You can continue to jump through your mental hoops to assuage your conscience that the church uses a fair amount of your contributions and my prior contributions to accumulate and hoard wealth. It does a terrific job at this.  It certainly is laying up treasures on earth.  I have no desire to debate this with you any longer as you egregiously misrepresent what I say in a dishonest way.  I will continue to give my paltry donations to places that really do seem to want to make a difference in relieving human suffering.

I thought the church in the beginning, took some cues from it's members in regard to it's holdings. I don't understand that members can't have a disagreement on how the church spends it's money. I wish I had the scriptures in the D&C where it states how the members have a say. 

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

thought the church in the beginning, took some cues from it's members in regard to it's holdings.

The Church was quite small in the beginning and could easily get feedback from local members at least.  
 

The size of the Church has both contributed to the need for more centralized decision making (it would take forever to take into account the worldwide membership’s opinions on complicated matters, imo) and its ability to do so without backlash from membership (it becomes less likely to be hurt by a portion of the church expressing disagreement with their feet).

It is still taking cues though, how much I don’t know.  But it takes surveys and does pilot programs for a long time (first became aware of them in my teens, so 50 years ago) and has had bishops’ gatherings in the past at conference where I believe there was training, but also input from bishops.
 

But the Church was never a democracy.

Edited November 16, 2023 by Calm

[Stormin' Mormon]

About a year ago, @Analytics made the following statement (in a thread called "The Church as the 5th largest private landholder in the US): (Sorry, I don't know how to link to or quote from other threads).  

Quote

the Church takes in about $7 billion a year in tithing, and operates the church on about 90% of that. 

Which is at odds with claims now being made:

35 minutes ago, Teancum said:

 the church uses a fair amount of your contributions and my prior contributions to accumulate and hoard wealth. 

 

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

If somebody wants to donate to the Church, they're certainly donating to an organization with high integrity, and the money won't be used to support opulent lifestyles of Church leaders. Of course. But on the margin, it won't be used to support the Church's  religious, educational, or charitable missions, either. Rather, it will be used to buy stocks and bonds to be saved for a hypothetical rainy day.

You MIGHT be able to make the argument that the majority of the Church's income is used to invest and grow wealth.  In that particular discussion, I'm on record believing that investing is not "using," but is rather "holding in reserve for future use."  If the Church has more money than it can responsibly use, it's better it be held in reserve in investment portfolios rather than under a mattress or in a large hollowed-out tower on the hills overlooking Duckburg.  Once the money is used, once its beyond the reach of the Church's checkbooks, then we can have a discussion about how wisely it was used and how that use reflects the Church's priorities.  Until then, we are just speculating about how those resources will eventually be deployed.  

But the present discussion has subtly shifted from a discussion about how the Church is using its income to a discussion about how the Church is using its contributions and donations.  I'm very comfortable donating to an organization that will use 90% of my contributions to run its mission, and holding the other 10% in reserve for future needs.  The fact that that 10% will generate additional funds on its own while waiting to be deployed does not change the fact that 90% of what I gave last month and last year has been used to run the Church.  

This probably just loops us back to the discussion we've had numerous times about fungibility and how returns on investments can't actually be distinguished from contributions.  But the fact that there are actually two separate entities managing the two types of revenues ought to mitigate that somewhat.  Contributions are received by the Church; returns on investments are received by Ensign Peak.  I haven't bought into the fungibility argument before, and it makes even less sense to me in this context.  

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

You are right SMAC.  The church can't increase its donations at all in a responsible way. 

I don't know what this means.  And I never said this.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

They should just continue to give an amount that is small in comparison to it's wealth. 

I have repeatedly substantiated this point (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) with citations to statements from the Presiding Bishopric, with articles and news items about the substantial levels of corruption / mismanagement / graft that frequently occur in the NFP industry, with comparisons to the the mess in California, and - most recently - with an article describing how "mega-wealthy" philanthropists are encountering the same sorts of issues that have been noted by the Presiding Bishopric.

I don't think you have addressed any of this.  The Presiding Bishopric have boots on the ground and extensive experience with administering the charitable programs of the Church.  As between their informed statements and your armchair quarterbacking, I'll go with the former.

I think you are really out of touch, T.  I think you have no idea as to the actual, boots-on-the-ground, in-real-life complexities and difficulties involved in administering the Church's humanitarian efforts on an international scale.  

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

You can continue to jump through your mental hoops to assuage your conscience

My conscience needs no assuaging.  I have no stewardship over the finances of the Church.

The Brethren, however, do have such stewardship, and i think they are doing a wonderful job.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

that the church uses a fair amount of your contributions and my prior contributions to accumulate and hoard wealth.

Again, you are not addressing the foregoing points.  

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

It does a terrific job at this.  It certainly is laying up treasures on earth.  I have no desire to debate this with you any longer as you egregiously misrepresent what I say in a dishonest way. 

As soon as you point me to where you are presenting your 5% proposal with "regard for or consideration of the actual efficacy of such disbursements, or the competency and integrity of the recipients of such funds," I will consider your request.  Until then, I will continue to point out your proposal's unreasoned and facile features.

That you are now quitting the discussion rather than substantiate your claim is, to me, an indication that you cannot substantiate your claim.

Thanks,

-Smac

[LoudmouthMormon]

Maybe this can help.

HEY @Teancum AND @Analytics: Please tell us a little about your thoughts regarding how the church should engage in more charitable works.

- To which charitable organizations should we donate?
- To which existing relief teams should we partner, (or increase partnership)?
- Every charity/relief org has financials.  They can be looked at in terms of % of each donated dollar taken by admin costs/salaries/operations/etc, and % of each donated dollar that actually reaches the target.  Do you have thoughts about, say, the church giving a billion dollars to a charitable organization that only spends perhaps 10% of it's income on it's target groups?

Speaking as a member of the peanut gallery, without hearing good answers from you both on such matters, whenever you suggest the church give 5%, you might as well be saying "Throw money at it".  Without some clear understanding about how you give a crap, I can't discern any substantial difference between the phrase, and what you are saying.

 

Edited November 16, 2023 by LoudmouthMormon

[pogi]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

Is there a possibility that the overall efforts by the Brethren over the past many decades to manage the financial affairs of the Church have been "inspired?" 

Is there a "possibility" that their use of the funds (or almost complete lack thereof) are inspired? Vs.  "Reason dictates" that they are inspired.

Two very different things.  It seems the goal post has been moved after I questioned the "spot-on logic".

Is there a possibility that their use of the funds (or lack thereof) are not inspired? 

Is it possible that Tanner was inspired to help the church get out of debt (or was he just implementing common money management practices?), but that there wasn't/isn't much of a game plan beyond that...?

Reason doesn't seem to "dictate" one possibility or the other.  Many possibilities.