Church's 2023 Expenditures in Philanthropic/Humanitarian Relief

LoudmouthMormon · March 25, 2024

Eureka! I might have had a thought worthy of thinking this morning.

So, 5%, right? Managers of massive piles of assets (endowments, hedge funds, etc) can spend 5% of that pile yearly, pretty much in perpetuity, yes? This is a pretty widely-known state of affairs amongst holders of such piles, those who administrate them, those who legislate them, those who are somehow employed to watchdog them, and those who criticize pile-owners who they think aren't doing it right. Yes?

Ok - hear me out.

Look at that beautiful exponential, logarithmic growth in temple construction. Not only are we building more and more, but the rate at which we construct them is climbing as well.

I did a little research on where our temples are. I wondered how easily the members in the areas served by the temples are able to pay for them. I wondered if we primarily build them in wealthy countries with high GDPs. So I did a little research. Most of the temples are in the US, and the US is a fabulously top tier GDP powerhouse. But what about temples outside of the US?

Well, here's an Excel chart I made to shed some light on an answer:

Each dot represents one country. For example, those two dots on the right are Mexico and Brazil, with 24 and 22 temples respectively, and a crushingly low sub-poverty GDP level of under ~10k per person per year.

The church sticks an awful lot of temples in poor areas that couldn't hope to support the cost of one. Looking at my spreadsheet data, half of our temples reside in nations with a GDP lower than ~42k per person per yr. 131 of them in extremely, soul-crushingly poor nations with a GDP of less than $10k.

So, temple construction costs of ~40-$120 million, per temple. Yearly operating costs of another $X million per year. My point is, the church is building temples that spend far more than the tithing costs of the members it serves, and the church is doing that more and more, at an exponential rate.

Ok. So, exponential growth can't go forever, obviously. The only question is when will the church stop experiencing exponential growth in temple construction. My brilliant thought that I had this morning: I bet it'll level off once yearly construction and operating costs, plus it's billion-and-growing charitable spend, equal that magic 5% number y'all are so hot about.

So there you go. You want us to spend more? Every year, we announce another pile of temples in areas where the members can't afford it. And we'll keep the money flowing to keep 'em operating in perpetuity.

I'm thinking my idea might have something to it. It seems to fit in the following ways:

- The church, operated by smart folks who are wise in the ways of capital allocation, already knows this 5% number, and is building towards it. Mature and good temporal stewardship.

- The church will be fulfilling it's mission of perfecting the saints, proclaiming the gospel, redeeming the dead, and caring for the poor and needy, from a financially advantageous position. It'll be able to spend billions in some of the poorest areas in the world, to bless the lives of the lost and the least. Bringing people to Christ, and bringing them clean water projects and sustainable education programs too.

- The church will be taking care of it's own with the funds given to it by it's own, with an excess going to the world at large.

- Y'all critics will still be mad and call foul, because although we'll have reached your magic 5% number, we won't be spending it on Analytics' "proper balance" of doing it his way. And every time we rejoice at another temple for Kenya or Mozambique or Haiti or the Congo or Honduras or Venezuela or the Philippines or whatever, your nasty little critic teeth will gnash madly and you'll continue to claim we're missing the point because not only do we have too much money to start with, we're also not just writing more checks to someone else.

Teancum · March 25, 2024

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

It's "routinely used" because it is a guideline for private foundations issued by the IRS in 1981, and has since become entrenched and rationalized and labeled in some quarters as a "best practice" for non-profits. But is it? See, e.g., here:

Endowments should rethink the 5% rule

Quote

For decades, most endowments and foundations have lived by the 5% payout rule, safe in knowing that such prudent spending safeguarded their financial health. However, with markets changing, many endowments find adhering to a government rule that demands how much of a portfolio must be spent annually to maintain tax-exempt status no longer makes sense.

The 5% payout guideline was instituted in 1981 by the IRS. While it applies only to private foundations, it was broadly adopted by most non-profit organizations as a sensible baseline for spending. Now, it is the most widely used spending percentage by institutional investors today, setting the return they must exceed annually to ensure the endowment grows.

If you have studies or evidence demonstrating the feasibility and coherence of the 5% rule as an organic principle, please provide it. Otherwise, it looks suspiciously like a "guideline" from the State as to private foundations that has morphed into a quasi-fiat for non-profits.

Quote

Employing a 5% spending policy means an organization must achieve a return of 5% plus the rate of inflation to preserve the portfolio's purchasing power and support the organization in perpetuity. Over much of the past 90 years, this has not typically been an issue. A decade ago, when cash was valuable, the 5% rule made sense. Endowments could make 4% annually on cash and use those funds as collateral for trading, making another 4% from investments such as U.S. Treasuries, top-rated municipal bonds and A-list dividend stocks. That conservative formula was a low-risk strategy to generate annual returns of 8% with ease. However, with the return on cash near zero for years, if an endowment generates only 4% profit from trading, it would shrink if spending stayed at 5%.

Adjusting expenditures to address for market conditions and other real-world circumstances sure makes a lot of sense.

Quote

Market conditions now make the 5% rule problematic. According to the Wilshire Trust Universe Comparison Service, on average, U.S. endowments returned -0.74% for the year ended June 30, after returns of 2.8% for the 12 months ended June 30, 2015. While this fiscal year has definitely started off much better through Feb. 28, the three-year returns will be a far cry from the double-digit gains of the recent, post-recession, past.

"Market conditions now make the 5% rule problematic."

This article was written in 2017. Have economic conditions gotten better or worse since then? Has this article become more or less relevant in the ensuing years?

Quote

Many experts believe strong stock market returns have been inflated for the past seven years by low interest rates and the quantitative easing policies of global central banks. However, due to a number of factors — including current equity market valuations, current long-term interest rate levels and the likelihood that the U.S. Federal Reserve will have a more normalized interest rate policy in the future — many experts expect lower returns on stocks over the coming decade and weak returns for bonds and cash equivalents. That means the sensible move for most endowments is to budget appropriately for the realistic rate of return that can be earned on assets at this point in the market cycle.

"{T}he sensible move for most endowments is to budget appropriately for the realistic rate of return that can be earned on assets at this point in the market cycle."

What are your thoughts about this?

I absolutely think that a church, an endowment fund, and any business with reserves should take into account market conditions as well as economic outlooks on a regular basis and adjust accordingly. ROI, market conditions, outlook, etc should all have bearing on such things.

Teancum · March 25, 2024

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Well? Does this affect your perspective at all on the 5% proposal? Why or why not?

Sigh....once again this was just a suggested guideline to work towards.

Teancum · March 25, 2024

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

The proposal for the Church to necessarily and reflexively spend 5% of its principal, with no regard for the effectiveness and wisdom of such expenditures, is feckless.

It's "routinely used" because it is a guideline for private foundations issued by the IRS in 1981, and has since become entrenched and rationalized and labeled in some quarters as a "best practice" for non-profits. But is it? See, e.g., here:

Endowments should rethink the 5% rule

If you have studies or evidence demonstrating the feasibility and coherence of the 5% rule as an organic principle, please provide it. Otherwise, it looks suspiciously like a "guideline" from the State as to private foundations that has morphed into a quasi-fiat for non-profits.

Adjusting expenditures to address for market conditions and other real-world circumstances sure makes a lot of sense.

"Market conditions now make the 5% rule problematic."

This article was written in 2017. Have economic conditions gotten better or worse since then? Has this article become more or less relevant in the ensuing years?

"{T}he sensible move for most endowments is to budget appropriately for the realistic rate of return that can be earned on assets at this point in the market cycle."

What are your thoughts about this?

This stuff makes sense to me. Much more than a rote 5% mandate (which, again, originated in 1981 as a "guideline" from the IRS, and has since morphed into a quasi-fiat for non-profits).

Well? Does this affect your perspective at all on the 5% proposal? Why or why not?

You and Roger may think the Church ought to base expenditure decisions based on rote observance of an IRS rule for private foundations that has been, in some quarters, applied to or become expected of non-profits. I think reasonable minds can have differing perspectives on that.

Here's an interesting article from 2010 by Burton Weisbrod and Evelyn D. Asch:

Endowment for a Rainy Day

Hmm. So institutions need to be thinking in "intergenerational" terms.

Hmm. So the purposes and objectives of an endowment vary according to the purposes and objectives of the institution.

Hmm. "Rainy day" seems to be a descriptor for the same concept for which you use epithets like "hedge fund" and "hoarding."

Hmm. I wonder if this can also be said about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Hmm. I wonder if this can also be said about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Relatively speaking, the Brethren live decidedly modest, non-profligate lives.  They have access to literally billions of dollars. They are in positions of authority which could allow them to allocate substantial portions of those funds to themselves. And yet . . . they are not doing this. Our leaders are by no means perfect. They make mistakes. They are human. But in terms of the financial management of the Church, they seem to be doing a very good job. I bring this issue up often because it tends to belie the implication - and even outright accusations - that the Church is greedy or unduly parsimonious. The Brethren are, cumulatively speaking, pretty smart, and they are not acting in their own best interests. I think they have in mind the long-term survival of the Church. And while our critics don't really care about that stuff, I am glad the Brethren are paying attention to it.

"It is a mistake to assume that a school’s endowment is determined by donors’ decisions to require that most of their contributions be retained and only a small percentage of their yield be spent. Rather, hospitals, symphonies, colleges, and other nonprofits decide how much of their income from all sources to spend and how much to save."

I think something similar can be said about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

"Protection against a rainy day need not be the only reason for creating an endowment, but it should surely be a major reason." Should this principle apply to the Church?

"{B}uilding endowment is not misguided if it is used as rainy day insurance, to preserve the stability and long term development of programs central to a nonprofit’s mission."  Should this principle apply to the Church?

"The hard questions are these: 'How large an endowment is enough?' and 'What is the appropriate balance between spending now and saving for the future?' We do not have the answers to these questions. Indeed, we think there is no single answer, but we do see a number of issues that deserve careful attention by researchers, nonprofit managers, and public policy leaders." Are these questions "hard" when applied to the Church? Is there a "single answer" (such as your and Roger's "5%" proposal)?

"{S}ociety is justified in asking how much is enough. Should 'enough' be measured by size of endowment or, as we prefer, by size of rainy day fund? The substantive question is how much saving by nonprofits should be encouraged."  Weisbrod and Asch advocate a focus on saving, whereas you and Roger advocate a focus on spending. Which focus ought to be preeminent?

"Nonprofits with sizable endowments must understand that if they succumb to the attraction of riskier and less liquid investments in pursuit of higher returns, they should be prepared to deal with the inevitable fiscal rainy days." Should the Church, with its many millions of members spread throughout the world, also prepare for "inevitable fiscal rainy days?" Or should it just reflexively spend a fixed percentage of its reserve because the IRS created it as a "guideline" for private foundations in 1981?

"Nonprofits with endowments should be willing to spend down their endowment to sustain program expenditures." The Church is fortunate in that it can presently "sustain program expenditures" without needing to "spend down {its} endowment." And again, the Church is "not primarily a humanitarian organization. We are the Church of Jesus Christ, reestablished or restored upon the earth in the latter days in preparation for the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ."

A few thoughts and observations and questions here:

1. The 5% payout requirement is mandated by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulations under Section 4942 of the Internal Revenue Code.

2. Public charities, on the other hand, are generally funded by a broader base of support from the public and typically have a more diverse governance structure. While public charities are subject to other requirements and regulations under the tax code, such as those outlined in Section 501(c)(3), they are not subject to the same minimum distribution rules as private foundations outlined in Section 4942. Instead, public charities must ensure that they operate exclusively for charitable purposes and avoid activities that could jeopardize their tax-exempt status.

3. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a tax-exempt organization that is not subject o the spending requirements of Section 4942 of the Internal Revenue Code.

4. Have you publicly disparaged other non-profit entities which do not voluntarily comply with Section 4942 of the Internal Revenue Code? I suspect the answer to this question will be "no," but that you will not directly answer it.

5. Are you in the habit of voluntarily complying with spending provisions in laws that do not apply to you? Do you follow the 5% payout provision under Section 4942 of the Internal Revenue Code?  I suspect the answer to this question will be "no," but that you will not directly answer it.

6. Assuming that you do not follow the foregoing 5% payout provision, you are demanding that the Church adhere to a standard that you do not apply to yourself. Is this correct?  I suspect the answer to this question will be "yes," but that you will not directly answer it.

I think you are too entrenched in your negative perspective on the Church to be willing to reconsider your position. I hold the same assessment of Roger. I don't know about Pogi.

However, I think there may be readers in this thread who are not as entrenched as you, who are willing to evaluate their perspectives on the Church, particularly as to complex and difficult topics like its efforts in international humanitarian relief, and perhaps grant it some measure of credit, and grace, and patience, and maybe even support and admiration.

The Church ain't perfect, but it's really good. I love it a lot. I think its members and leaders are working hard to make the world a better place. I think those who endlessly disparage it, who regularly cast it in the worst possible light and impute to it the worst possible motives, are doing a disservice to themselves, to the family of man, and even to themselves. They are fomenting cynicism and ill will against an organization that, while flawed, is pretty clearly a wonderful institution overall.

Thanks,

-Smac

I may or may not try to respond more to the above post. But you are exhausting. You apparently have far more free and discretionary time during the day than I have.

Calm · March 25, 2024

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Roger/Analytics has been pushing the rote 5% thing for years no. He has, AFAICS, never qualified or conditioned this benchmark on the expenditures being efficient and effective, on the Church using vetting and oversight procedures in its partnerships with other organizations.

This appears to be a direct contradiction of what I am reading. I truly don’t understand how you conclude this.

Analytics · March 25, 2024

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Roger/Analytics:...

As a representative example of what you've quoted me as saying, I said the Church could follow Harvard University's example and "set the goal of giving away 5% of the principle in their endowment on an annual basis." Can you really look yourself in the eye and say you were being honest when you paraphrased that as saying the Church should "necessarily and reflexively spend 5% of its principal, with no regard for the effectiveness and wisdom of such expenditures."?

Can you look yourself in the eye and say that's a fair representation?

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

And it is, as far as i can tell, a single acknowledgment of logistical challenges...

Thank you for admitting you are incapable of reading what I actually write.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

amongst his (and yours, and Roger's) endless disparagements about the Church not caring about our fellow man.

This is a formal CFR. Give me one example of these alleged "endless disparagements" where I say the Church doesn't care about "our fellow man." Just one.

Your lies about me are getting old. But I guess lying about me is easier than dealing with what I actually write, right?

Teancum · March 25, 2024

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Once more: The Brethren have made public statements about the Church's investment strategy for a few decades now.

Thanks,

-Smac

That was not what my CFR was for.

Teancum · March 25, 2024

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I am determined the defend the Church against unreasoned, unreasonable, undue, unfair, etc. criticisms.

I acknowledge that I don't like critics of my faith using humanitarian aid as a brickbat. I don't think such things ought to be weaponized and used as a pretext for justifying endless efforts to cast the Church in a bad light, to impute to it terrible motives, to characterize it mostly or entirely by its flaws (with little or no acknowledgment of its virtues, efforts, successes, etc.).

I asked you last November to document this. You didn't. You subsequently shifted your rhetoric, but not by much.

"Maybe." The mind reels.

I have linked to and quoted this 2020 article a few times:

And this one (also from 2020) :

And this one (also from 2020) :

The Church in 2020:

"The Church has doubled its humanitarian donations over the past five years."

"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."

"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.'"

Teancum in 2023-2024:

"They just did not want anyone knowing how much cash they were raking in and accumulating and how little in comparison they were using to ease human suffering."

"If you think a church that claims to be the Church of Jesus Christ sitting on such wealth is quite fine then you are as immoral as they are as far as Christian values goes. If you think patting themselves on the back about giving a billion away compared to their massive wealth than you have priority problems."

"For those who are really serious about donating their $$ to relieve humansuffiering I suggest you take the money you donate the church and find organizations whose priority is relieving human suffering."

"I commend the church for beginning to increase what they do with humanitarian aid and relief while at the same time hoping they can do more given their vast resources. Maybe they are already doing that in plan to continue to grow such efforts."

"You are as immoral as they are."

"Maybe they are already doing that..."

There is no placating faultfinders. They will never be satisfied.

Thanks,

-Smac

You have far to much time on your hands.

smac97 · March 25, 2024

46 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

The proposal for the Church to necessarily and reflexively spend 5% of its principal, with no regard for the effectiveness and wisdom of such expenditures, is feckless.

That proposal you outline here is a straw man. Nobody here has argued that the Church should "necessarily and reflexively spend 5% of its principal, with no regard for the effectiveness and wisdom of such expenditures." Ever.

Feel free to document you qualifying or conditioning the 5% proposal on the application of additional parameters (effectiveness, vetting, oversight, conducive with "core principles of personal responsibility, community support, self-reliance and sustainability," avoiding unintended-but-still-terrible adverse effects, etc.).

I have provided a number of links to statements where you have not done this, and where you have instead presented, over and over, the rote and unqualified 5% thing.

46 minutes ago, Analytics said:

According to that link, the 5% rule has been "broadly adopted by most non-profit organizations as a sensible baseline for spending." Yet based upon zero research, zero education, zero expertise, and zero experience, you choose to disparage most non-profit organizations as being feckless, facile, unreasonable, utterly uninformed, naive, absurdly simplistic, blithe, ridiculous, unserious, and unreasoned.

No. I am saying your proposal, that the Church should rotely spend 5% of its reserves, amounting to many billions of dollars per year, with no regard for additional parameters or constraints (such as those listed above) is feckless, facile, unreasonable, utterly uninformed, naive, absurdly simplistic, blithe, ridiculous, unserious, and unreasoned.

Now, if you are conceding that the Church should use these parameters to qualify any humanitarian expenditure, then just say so. Quit being coy.

But then, as soon as you make this concession, the next part of the discussion will likely begin with something like this:

"But hey, the Church is already using these parameters to vet and monitor its humanitarian expenditures. And the Presiding Bishopric has repeatedly indicated that the Church's efforts are constrained by these quality control measures. And yet the Church has explained that its charitable donations went from $900 million in 2021 to $1 billion in 2022 to $1.3 billion in 2023, so it seems like the Church is making marked improvements in this field. So what is it that you are grousing about? Is it that the Church should do more? And faster? How much more, and how much faster? And given that 5% of the Church's reserves would - by even your estimation - amount for 5-7 billion dollars per year, is there a possibility that the amount of money the Church could spend might outstrip the number of properly vetted partners and projects to be funded by that enormous annual amount? Have you accounted for that at all? Do you even care? Or is it 5%-of-Reserve-Funds über alles? Your various and extensive commentary does not seem to give much thought to these things."

Roger, I think you like bashing the Church. Here, you have seized upon a monetary benchmark and are faulting the Church for not following it. And this is so even though the Church has made substantial improvements in the last several years. So the benchmark comes across less as a good faith proposal, and more of an ad hoc demand, and a feckless one at that. I take it as a manifestation of Saul Alinsky's 13th Rule: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." You have picked the target (the Church, or the Church's humanitarian efforts), frozen it (imputed the 5% proposal as the benchmark by which the Church's efforts ought be measured), and polarized it (you endlessly denigrate the Church's efforts, even after years of it making improvements).

46 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I know you don't believe this, but there are actually economists that know more than you that set up Harvard's guidelines for saving and spending its trust.

Very sophisticated thinkers have devised the investment strategies for the endowments we are talking about (Harvard University, for crying out loud!).

Harvard spending its endowment on . . . Harvard. Right. And that's relevant to the Church's expenditures on humanitarian aid because . . .

46 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Yet you feel qualified to tell these people that their guidelines are a senseless quasi-fiat?

No. Your unfettered 5% proposal for the Church to rotely spend 5% of its reserves, with no qualifiers or additional parameters, is a quasi-fiat, and a feckless and unreasoned one.

46 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Serious question, Spencer. Are you intellectually incapable of making a good-faith effort to understand what I think and why?

We've been arguing this for years now. During that interval, the Church has made marked improvement and progress in its humanitarian efforts. And this matters not a lick. Your characterization of the Church is as persistent as it is vicious and unfair: The Church still sucks, it is still indifferent to the welfare of our fellow man, it is still nothing but a "hedge fund" that is "hoarding" wealth, and so on.

We reciprocally dispute each other's willingness to confer in good faith. So I often end up writing with an eye toward readers other than yourself.

46 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Or is this topic so emotionally painful to you that it clouds your ability to think? Or are you simply lying? I can't tell.

I started this thread, and regularly participate in discussions on these topics.

I am willing to examine this issue from all sides, even including someone as relentlessly hostile to a religious group as you. But I don't trust you to fairly characterize the Church or issues pertaining to it. I don't trust you to frame these issues in reasonably fair ways. You insist on casting the Church in the worst possible light, and impute to it the worst possible motives.

So spare us the "I'm just calling 'em as I see 'em" schtick.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 25, 2024 by smac97

Teancum · March 25, 2024

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

And even after this increase, Teancum is still disparaging the Church, calling it "immoral" and lacking in (or even devoid of) "Christian values" for not spending as much as he thinks it ought to spend, and only hinting that the Church "maybe" improving its humanitarian efforts.

There is no placating faultfinders. They will never be satisfied.

You really are pretty thinned skinned about this aren't you. I think I have given sufficient acknowledgement on key points.

pogi · March 25, 2024

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

For our critics, no matter what the Church does, it will always be...

And for those who reactively reject anything coming from a critic's mouth, it will always be...

Image result for she cant do anything wrong meme

Surely the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Edited March 25, 2024 by pogi

smac97 · March 25, 2024

30 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

amongst his (and yours, and Roger's) endless disparagements about the Church not caring about our fellow man.

This is a formal CFR. Give me one example of these alleged "endless disparagements" where I say the Church doesn't care about "our fellow man." Just one.

Your lies about me are getting old. But I guess lying about me is easier than dealing with what I actually write, right?

Well, there's this:

Quote

Nor are the Brethren or the Church reasonably compared to Ebenezer Scrooge, as Analytics has repeatedly done (here, here, here) (and if that comparison was not sufficiently on-the-nose, he has also characterized the Brethren as "miserly"), as well as "SeekingUnderstanding" (here). Analytics has also characterized the Church as being "primarily a giant hedge fund that happens to also have a religious operation," and has compared it to a hypothetical "Pharaoh {who} starved his own people now because he wanted to save up food for himself for a hypothetical 20-year famine." He has also said that it is "obscene" for the Church to look to and plan for its long-term existence.

Was the Scrooge character known for A) caring about his fellow man, or B) not caring about his fellow man?

Is a "Pharaoh {who} starved his own people" better described as A) caring about his fellow man, or B) not caring about his fellow man?

Is "miserly" (that is, "someone is stingy with money and unwilling to share with others") descriptive of someone who A) does care about his fellow man, or B) does not care about his fellow man?

Is describing a religious institution as "primarily a giant hedge fund that happens to also have a religious operation" intended to characterize the Church as an institution that A) does care about his fellow man, or B) does not care about its fellow man?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 25, 2024 by smac97

smac97 · March 25, 2024

12 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

And even after this increase, Teancum is still disparaging the Church, calling it "immoral" and lacking in (or even devoid of) "Christian values" for not spending as much as he thinks it ought to spend, and only hinting that the Church "maybe" improving its humanitarian efforts.

You really are pretty thinned skinned about this aren't you.

You have publicly declared the Church to be "immoral" and lacking in (or even devoid of) "Christian values."

I think you have lost track of of things.

12 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I think I have given sufficient acknowledgement on key points.

While elsewhere continuing to characterize the Church in some of the worst ways possible.

Thanks,

-Smac

Analytics · March 25, 2024

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, there's this:

Was the Scrooge character known for A) caring about his fellow man, or B) not caring about his fellow man?

As I explained in that thread, the Scrooge analogy was narrow in scope. Specifically:

The point of the scrooge analogy is to counter your assertion that the apostles not "living large" is somehow proof that they aren't motivated to make the Church itself wealthy. Scrooge didn't live large either, but until his fateful Christmas, he thought having money was much more important than donating to the less fortunate.

I happen to think that there is a relatively broad range of well-thought-out guidelines for how tax-advantaged non-profits ought to save and spend, and I happen to think that the Church falls outside of that range. You refuse to actually engage with me on the details of this, and instead do two things:

You make personal attacks against me for holding this principle-based opinion about the proper balance between spending and saving
You claim that the Church and the leaders are "good", and that the leaders aren't getting personally rich off of it

My purpose of the scrooge analogy was to counter this second point. It wasn't to somehow imply the Church doesn't "care about our fellow man."

But, since we can't find an authoritative source to turn to on what I personally believe, we're going to have to agree to disagree.

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Is a "Pharaoh {who} starved his own people" better described as A) caring about his fellow man, or B) not caring about his fellow man?

The Pharaoh analogy was an answer to a specific hypothetical question. The question was about whether or not saving too much money is even possible--the person I was talking to seemed to think that there is no such thing as saving too much money. Just because I think that it is possible to save too much money doesn't imply I think the Church "doesn't care about our fellow man."

But, since we can't find an authoritative source to turn to on what I personally believe, we're going to have to agree to disagree.

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Is "miserly" (that is, "someone is stingy with money and unwilling to share with others") descriptive of someone who A) does care about his fellow man, or B) does not care about his fellow man?

You don't really do subtlety, do you? You take subtle comments and force them into either a good box or a black box.

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Is describing a religious institution as "primarily a giant hedge fund that happens to also have a religious operation" intended to characterize the Church as an institution that A) does care about his fellow man, or B) does not care about its fellow man?

The Church uses most of its annual income to grow the size of its for-profit business empire. That is a numerical fact. Just because I'm stating this fact doesn't mean I think "the Church doesn't care about our fellow man."

But, since we can't find an authoritative source to turn to on what I personally believe, we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Analytics · March 25, 2024

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

No. I am saying your proposal, that the Church should rotely spend 5% of its reserves, amounting to many billions of dollars per year, with no regard for additional parameters or constraints (such as those listed above) is feckless, facile, unreasonable, utterly uninformed, naive, absurdly simplistic, blithe, ridiculous, unserious, and unreasoned.

CFR that I said the Church should "rotely" spend 5% of its reserves. CFR that I said it should do so "with no regard for additional parameters or constraints."

And please answer this question that I already asked.

As a representative example of what you've quoted me as saying, I said the Church could follow Harvard University's example and "set the goal of giving away 5% of the principle in their endowment on an annual basis." Can you really look yourself in the eye and say you were being honest when you paraphrased that as saying the Church should "necessarily and reflexively spend 5% of its principal, with no regard for the effectiveness and wisdom of such expenditures."?

Can you look yourself in the eye and say that's a fair representation?

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Roger, I think you like bashing the Church.

Spencer, I think you like spreading lies about me.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Here, you have seized upon a monetary benchmark and are faulting the Church for not following it.

That's not true. You and several other apologists hate actually dealing with specific criticisms, so instead you make personal attacks against critics and say, "For our critics, nothing we do will ever be enough."

On this particular issue, somebody said "how much would be enough?" I provided a an example of several preeminent foundations and illustrated that they have the goal of following the 5% rule, and I said, "I'll go on record as saying that I'd find any spending rule that is broadly in harmony with any of these rules to be perfectly commendable by the Church."

As a reminder of how we got here, I wasn't very interested in this thread and I ignored it. That was until you decided to drag me into it by spreading the lie that "Analytics things the Church should give away a fixed percentage of its principal every year, apparently with no regard for whether such expenditures are sensible."

When I did enter the thread, I simply laid out my principles. I said:

Unsurprisingly, smac97 attributed to me a position that is the polar opposite of what I've consistently said on these issues. For the record I said [with bright highlights on the points you are psychologically incapable or recognizing]:

I believe charities should be financially transparent so that donors and potential donors have a basis for determining whether or not donating to them would be an excellent way to allocate resources.
I believe that allocating resources effectively is very difficult. Nevertheless, resources ought to be allocated in an effective manner. The Church should make sure that it only donates money to charities where the money will be effectively put to use to make the world a better place. As far as I know, the Church does in fact do this and should be commended for that.
I believe that all organizations, including corporations, charities, and churches, should find the proper balance between saving and spending. Related to that is finding the proper balance between making sure a charitable endowment is both making the work a better place now and is sustainable into the future. Over the last few years, I've provided many resources on how other organizations achieve this.
If a charity found that doing charitable work was too difficult and instead decided to save most of its annual income for a future "rainy day" rather than dealing with the rain that is falling now, it wouldn't make sense to donate to such a charity. I believe the Church does its due diligence and doesn't donate to such organizations.
Individuals who consider making donations to the Church should consider whether it is sensible to donate to an organization that uses most of its annual income (i.e. tithing plus investment income) to grow the size of its for-profit business portfolio rather than for religious or charitable purposes.

And yet, after being corrected perhaps a dozen times, you insist that I think the opposite of what I say. I think my position is that allocating resources effectively is very difficult. Nevertheless, resources ought to be allocated in an effective manner. The Church should make sure that it only donates money to charities where the money will be effectively put to use to make the world a better place. As far as I know, the Church does in fact do this and should be commended for that.

I said that in the very first post I made on this thread. But you insist I believe the opposite of that and think I'm arguing that donations should be made "with no regard for additional parameters or constraints."

I think I mean what I say, but you insist I mean the opposite of what I say, and we've come to an impasse on the topic. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Edited March 25, 2024 by Analytics

MiserereNobis · March 25, 2024

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

The Church is also not primarily a provider of healthcare.

Nor is it primarily a provider of education.

Neither is the Catholic Church, but it is still the world’s largest non-governmental provider of both healthcare and education.

Being primarily a Christian Church and providing healthcare and education are not mutually exclusive.

smac97 · March 25, 2024

15 minutes ago, Analytics said:

CFR that I said the Church should "rotely" spend 5% of its reserves. CFR that I said it should do so "with no regard for additional parameters or constraints."

I have lost count of the number of times you have trotted out the 5% thing, with nary a reference to qualifying or conditioning it on "additional parameters or constraints."

If you are making those qualifications/conditions now, just say so. Or if you have done so in the past, provide some links.

15 minutes ago, Analytics said:

And please answer this question that I already asked.

As a representative example of what you've quoted me as saying, I said the Church could follow Harvard University's example and "set the goal of giving away 5% of the principle in their endowment on an annual basis." Can you really look yourself in the eye and say you were being honest when you paraphrased that as saying the Church should "necessarily and reflexively spend 5% of its principal, with no regard for the effectiveness and wisdom of such expenditures."?

Can you look yourself in the eye and say that's a fair representation?

Spencer, I think you like spreading lies about me.

You:

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.

Nothing in there about "additional parameters or constraints." No qualification or limitation on the benchmark.

You:

Quote

The 5% Rule

Here are some sources that address that question.

Investopia says "Some endowment funds have guidelines stating how much of each year's investment income can be spent. For many universities, this amount is approximately 5% of the endowment's total asset value."

BYU Professor Aaron Miller says in Meridian Magazine "Many private foundations annually distribute the minimum 5% of their total assets, making endowments equal to 20 times an annual budget very common."

Of course sophisticated financial people like to adjust the rules to fit their specific circumstances, and some examples of organizations that distribute something other than 5% include:

University of Colorado: "On July 1 each year, 4 percent of the endowment’s fair market value as of the prior December 31 is distributed for spending in support that scholarship program."

Harvard: "As a general rule, Harvard targets an annual endowment payout rate of 5.0 to 5.5% of market value."
...
As I hope you can tell, I've spent a few hours researching this. I'll go on record as saying that I'd find any spending rule that is broadly in harmony with any of these rules to be perfectly commendable by the Church. I've suggested the simple "5% payout guideline" because of its simplicity and coherence.

Nothing in there about "additional parameters or constraints." No qualification or limitation on the benchmark.

You:

Quote

What I would recommend they do is:

Come up with a plan to give away about 5% of the balance of their rainy day fund a year.

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.

Nothing in there about "additional parameters or constraints." No qualification or limitation on the benchmark.

You:

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.
...
To get in line with the general rule of thumb for how respectable endowments achieve a balance between accomplishing their mission now and and into the future, the Church would need to increase its annual spending by about $8 billion a year.

Nothing in there about "additional parameters or constraints." No qualification or limitation on the benchmark.

You:

Quote

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."
...
If they are endowment, then about 5% of the principal should be used to fund its mission on an annual basis.

Nothing in there about "additional parameters or constraints." No qualification or limitation on the benchmark.

And again, Harvard spends its endowment on Harvard, not on humanitarian efforts.

You:

Quote

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.

Nothing in there about "additional parameters or constraints." No qualification or limitation on the benchmark.

And again, Harvard spends its endowment on Harvard, not on humanitarian efforts.

You:

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.

Nothing in there about "additional parameters or constraints." No qualification or limitation on the benchmark.

You:

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.

Nothing in there about "additional parameters or constraints." No qualification or limitation on the benchmark.

We've been discussing this issue for years. AFAICS, you have never qualified the 5% benchmark. It's a fixed percentage, come heck or high water. You have never qualified or limited your proposal with additional parameters or constraints (that the Church ought to take into account things like effectiveness, vetting, oversight, conducive with "core principles of personal responsibility, community support, self-reliance and sustainability," avoiding unintended-but-still-terrible adverse effects, etc.).

If you agree with that your 5% proposal ought to be qualified to account for these things, then just say so and we can move on.

15 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Here, you have seized upon a monetary benchmark and are faulting the Church for not following it.

That's not true.

Ah. So the basis for you characterizing the Church as "miserly," as akin to Ebenezer Scrooge, as comparable to a "Pharaoh {who} starved his own people" was not about the Church's humanitarian expenditures? And these characterizations are not intended to "fault" the Church?

15 minutes ago, Analytics said:

You and several other apologists hate actually dealing with specific criticisms, so instead you make personal attacks against critics and say, "For our critics, nothing we do will ever be enough."

Your "criticism" is nothing akin to "specific." That is one of its more glaring defects. All I've seen from you for years now is 5%-of-Reserve-Funds über alles, with no substantive acknowledgment or treatment of the various issues which I think should qualify and be a part of the Church's evaluation of humanitarian partners and projects (effectiveness, vetting, oversight, conducive with "core principles of personal responsibility, community support, self-reliance and sustainability," avoiding unintended-but-still-terrible adverse effects, etc.).

If you agree that these qualifications make sense, then say so and we can move on. If you think otherwise, then lay out your reasoning.

15 minutes ago, Analytics said:

On this particular issue, somebody said "how much would be enough?" I provided a an example of several preeminent foundations and illustrated that they have the goal of following the 5% rule, and I said, "I'll go on record as saying that I'd find any spending rule that is broadly in harmony with any of these rules to be perfectly commendable by the Church."

As a reminder of how we got here, I wasn't very interested in this thread and I ignored it. That was until you decided to drag me into it by spreading the lie that "Analytics things the Church should give away a fixed percentage of its principal every year, apparently with no regard for whether such expenditures are sensible."

See above. AFAICS, you have never qualified your 5% proposal.

15 minutes ago, Analytics said:

When I did enter the thread, I simply laid out my principles. I said:

Unsurprisingly, smac97 attributed to me a position that is the polar opposite of what I've consistently said on these issues. For the record I said [with bright highlights on the points you are psychologically incapable or recognizing]:

I believe charities should be financially transparent so that donors and potential donors have a basis for determining whether or not donating to them would be an excellent way to allocate resources.

Yes, yes. But AFAICS, you have said essentially nothing about the point at issue, namely, qualifications or conditions on the 5% proposal. (effectiveness, vetting, oversight, conducive with "core principles of personal responsibility, community support, self-reliance and sustainability," avoiding unintended-but-still-terrible adverse effects, etc.).

15 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I believe that allocating resources effectively is very difficult. Nevertheless, resources ought to be allocated in an effective manner. The Church should make sure that it only donates money to charities where the money will be effectively put to use to make the world a better place. As far as I know, the Church does in fact do this and should be commended for that.

Wonderful! You said this, apparently for the first time ever, on Saturday (and I overlooked it) and again just now.

So the same guy who, when discussing the Church's philanthropic efforts, has publicly characterized the Church as "miserly," as akin to Ebenezer Scrooge, as comparable to a "Pharaoh {who} starved his own people," is now "commend{ing}" the Church because it "donates money to charities where the money," but does so "only" when such expenditures "will be effectively put to use to make the world a better place."

I agree that the Church should be commended for this. I happily eat crow and retract my former statements about you being unable/unwilling to do this. Thank you. Truly. I will consider your various past disparagements of the Church on this issue as water under the bridge.

Now for the next part:

1. Barring a change in applicable law, how much the Church (which, again, is "not primarily a humanitarian organization") spends on humanitarian efforts will always be a judgment call. Always. Do you agree with this? If not, why not?

2. How do you propose to quantify or test the distance between what the Church is doing and what you think it ought to be doing?

3. Do you agree or disagree that the Church has, in recent years, been more forthcoming ("transparent") regarding its humanitarian efforts/expenditures? Of particular note, I think 2020 included a number of published statements that clarified things quite a bit.

4. I have previously summarized my position as follows:

Quote

I am espousing

A) listening to what the Brethren have said,

B) acknowledging the past, present and ongoing efforts of the Church,

C) consider the real-world "wise stewardship" considerations the Church must take into account,

D) qualify comparisons of the Church to other groups/entities,

E) give the Brethren a bit of grace and patience (and quit speaking evil of them),

F) pray for them rather than publicly speak against them, and

G) look to our own individual abilities and opportunities to help in humanitarian efforts.

As you are not a Latter-day Saint, I don't expect you to treat the Church with the same sorts of decorum, respect, etc. as would be reasonably expected of observant members of the Church. And I don't know anything about your religious beliefs, so item (F) above ("pray for {the Brethren}") is likely not in the cards. But otherwise, what flaws do you see in the foregoing assessment?

Thanks,

-Smac

smac97 · March 25, 2024

1 minute ago, MiserereNobis said:

Quote

The Church is also not primarily a provider of healthcare.

Nor is it primarily a provider of education.

Neither is the Catholic Church, but it is still the world’s largest non-governmental provider of both healthcare and education.

Being primarily a Christian Church and providing healthcare and education are not mutually exclusive.

I agree. Hence the importance of the word "primarily."

I think our respective faiths have differing perspectives on mandates for "providing healthcare." Our church is mostly out of that sector, except for humanitarian and missionary efforts which center on healthcare. Education is a biggie for both of us, and I am glad of that.

Thanks,

-Smac

pogi · March 25, 2024

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Education is a biggie for both of us, and I am glad of that.

Seriously? Being providers of education is a “biggie” for us, like the Catholics?

What do we have? BYU?

In the US ALONE, there are 6,429 Catholic elementary, middle and high schools and 181 members of the ACCU (Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities). In predominantly Catholic countries, those numbers are probably tiny.

We have a modest program to help finance higher education in developing countries, but we are not providers.

Edited March 25, 2024 by pogi

ZealouslyStriving · March 26, 2024

To be fair I would very much like/support a Catholic or SDA-like education system for LDS kids.

On that I could agree with the naysayers.

Analytics · March 26, 2024

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I have lost count of the number of times you have trotted out the 5% thing, with nary a reference to qualifying or conditioning it on "additional parameters or constraints."

If you are making those qualifications/conditions now, just say so. Or if you have done so in the past, provide some links.

The authoritative post I made on this topic was this one, where I meticulously lay out example after example, supported by numerous highly rated references, and conclude:

I'll go on record as saying that I'd find any spending rule that is broadly in harmony with any of these rules to be perfectly commendable by the Church.

Please note the words I've bolded and compare them to the adjectives you use to describe my position, which include words like "rotely" and "without regard to other parameters." I'm giving the Church a pretty big strike zone here of what I'd consider "perfectly commendable."

On this thread, I've said the following:

How many times do you need me to repeat this? Like all charitable organizations, the Church ought to be wise and only allocate resources in good ways.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

You:

Nothing in there about "additional parameters or constraints." No qualification or limitation on the benchmark.