- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Interesting article on the large sums moved out of Canada tax-free to BYU: Glad to see the money is subsidizing a higher learning institution where people can get an education without going too far into debt.
There is criticism in the article about the church and its lack of transparency, as well as cries for investigations, but the church indicates everything
they do is legal. I think the church would pay pretty strict attention to legalities so as not to draw too much attention to the probable large sums
of money it has, and, hurt the faith of members in tithing if they feel funds are misused.
SilentDawning wrote:
Interesting article on the large sums moved out of Canada tax-free to BYU:Glad to see the money is subsidizing a higher learning institution where people can get an education without going too far into debt.
There is criticism in the article about the church and its lack of transparency, as well as cries for investigations, but the church indicates everything
they do is legal. I think the church would pay pretty strict attention to legalities so as not to draw too much attention to the probable large sums
of money it has, and, hurt the faith of members in tithing if they feel funds are misused.
1. Higher learning is good. I agree that learning that random American students are benefitting from your money without you or them knowing is not easy to approve of. I don’t know whether the scope is extreme (it feels like that to me – especially with comparisons to other schools), so there may be a bias to emphasize the extremity.
2. Legality is an important church value for sure. I am coming to the conclusion that the church needs an independent “Board of Ethics” for lack of a better term to draw attention to the optics in situations like this (the PR department is reactive, proactive in terms of positive photo ops and the like – so they don’t qualify). However, quite a few people would have multiple cows if such a group was formed – it would be a massive historical departure AND there is a decent chance that it would wind up devolving into competing power groups and split the organization.
There’s legal and there’s moral. As per the article, between 2007 and today $1B was given to BYU from donations made in Canada.
I’m no expert in Canadian law, all I really know is that the church reports their financials in Canada, likely because they are required to do so.
A few points:
It’s harder to criticize money going towards education.
- I see the donations from Canada to BYU as an accounting shell game. Last year the church gave $93.6 million to BYU from donations made in Canada. That’s $93.6 million that the church doesn’t have to come up with from other sources… other unmonitored sources.
A hypothetical:
Unmonitored account A has $100 million
Monitored account B has $100 million
BYU needs an influx of $100 million
It would be in the church’s best interest to drain monitored account B with the money going towards a worthy cause like education. Then the church would still have $100 million in an unmonitored account to spend freely and without criticism or oversight.
Now consider the alternative, if they drained account A instead of account B, they’d still have $100 million left over, just like the other scenario, but it would all be in a monitored account where expenses would be scrutinized and possibly even subject to legal limitations on how the money could be spent.
Another point, is it moral for Canadians to be subsidizing education for an American university? What if there was a BYU-Canada?
To communicate one of my biases, sometimes I see tithing like an income tax that is applied to members all over the world where most of the money goes towards embettering Utah. Like a federal income tax where 90% of the money goes towards making Rhode Island really,
reallynice. Now that that’s out of the way I’ll try to mount a small defense.
A quick google search says that 0.5% of the students at BYU are Canadian.
The article says that last year $93.6 million of donations made by Canadian members went to BYU.
$93.6 million is 0.5% of $18,720 million. I’ll round down to $18 billion. If it costs the church $18 billion to operate BYU for a year and Canada donations are contributing $90 million to the cause, the money coming from Canada represents their “fair share” of education subsidies given the number of Canadians attending the school.
Now… I don’t think it costs $18 billion per year to run BYU but I have no way of knowing. I still think it’s mostly a way to spend down a monitored account to free up money in unmonitored accounts.
Legal? Sure. Moral? I don’t know.
I understand the concern, particularly the optics, but, just a quick point for some balance: American donations subsidize non-American efforts and members regularly – at a whoppingly high rate.
This does not bother me much. 1) Yes, the church has lots and lots of money. Been there done that.
2) It is for education. Hard to take fault with the cause.
3) It is legal. My understanding of the church is that they are careful not to break the law.
4) The church isn’t transparent. Yes, I believe the church is only as transparent as they are required to be (see point #3).
The fact that tiny old Canada, 1/10th of the population of America, with a small Mormon community (to which I once belonged) has a Billion to move over bothers me. It suggests the enormity of the financial resources of the church, in contrast to the tight-fistedness I saw as a leader and when I tried to get help from LDS Social Services for counseling. SilentDawning wrote:
The fact that tiny old Canada, 1/10th of the population of America, with a small Mormon community (to which I once belonged) has a Billion to move over bothers me. It suggests the enormity of the financial resources of the church, in contrast to the tight-fistedness I saw as a leader and when I tried to get help from LDS Social Services for counseling.
I agree that on the local level the church can seem especially tight fisted. I think that’s not the direct fault of the local leadership, I think that’s imposed by the church. It does bother me that the church has hundreds of billions in assets and spends a relatively small amount on helping the poor.
I think your statement above SD has more to do with relative wealth than population. As previously stated in this thread, the North American church subsidizes the rest of the world to a large extent. That’s not because we have a huge Mormon population (Mormons make up less than 2% of the US population and only about 0.5% of Canada) but because our relative wealth is so much higher than the wealth of other places where the church has a high number of members. We also have to take into account the activity rate in those places – it’s not only about ability to pay tithing, it’s about of those who do actually pay as well.
To the BYU subsidy specifically, I do see it somewhat has Nibbler does – I think the church more or less sees the money as one big pot as opposed to an itemized budget. Among private universities BYU is a bargain. All four of my children went to BYU, and that was in part because BYU was actually cheaper than state colleges in my state when taking into account the fees of the state system. (For the record I am not a fan of the current trend toward ultra-conservatism at BYU.)
To clarify a point I made above. There are lots of words swimming in my brain but only some make it to the page. That the church subsidizes church operations around the world there is very little doubt. There are stake centers, ward buildings, temples, etc. in areas that I’m sure couldn’t cover the costs without an influx of money that’s being generated in the USA.
What I was more referring to were the ancillaries. I’m not holding my breath waiting for SLC to gentrify downtown Wichita, Kansas. I’m not holding my breath waiting for SLC to build a $2 billion dollar mall in Atlanta, Georgia.
Maybe that’s more of a function of where the church is HQ’ed, opportunities they see out their front window every day, and maybe that’s changing as investments with good ROI potential are being discovered in divers places. This is a thread derailment. Carry on.
There are a number of problems with donated (and other) monies within the Church. Even a casual look into history should give good reason for the Church to avoid transparency; in essence there is little reason to give our enemies any legal cause to bankrupt the Church. Church leaders have also made mistakes with funds – perhaps most notable would be the Kirkland Safety Society. Sadly, the enemies of the church have targeted church funds since the beginning. Currently the Church has entire separate legal organizations specifically for funds in every country in which the Church operates and accepts funds. Often, “outsiders” of the Church are critical because, based on lessons learned, the Church is not very “transparent”. Those within the Church that have had anything to do with Church funds realize that the Church does not deal with it’s financing lightly. Monies obtained by the Church are consider “consecrated” and misuse is not easily forgiven. Most general authorities have their personal finances in pristine order before they are called as general authorities and are not known to be liberal or unwise spenders. Other Church leaders are monitored very closely for any funds they are allowed to spend.
From my own experience in such matters – if the Church is moving funds from Canada – what is being reported is likely somewhat of a tip of an iceberg. If I had investments in Canada, I would immediately liquidate as much and as soon as possible and pursue as low a profile in such affairs as possible. It is my opinion that the Church (of all organizations I have encountered) is the wisest (though not without any flaw) with funds as an organization. I wish more organizations (especially governments) were as cautious with their funds.
nibbler wrote:
To clarify a point I made above. There are lots of words swimming in my brain but only some make it to the page.That the church subsidizes church operations around the world there is very little doubt. There are stake centers, ward buildings, temples, etc. in areas that I’m sure couldn’t cover the costs without an influx of money that’s being generated in the USA.
What I was more referring to were the ancillaries. I’m not holding my breath waiting for SLC to gentrify downtown Wichita, Kansas. I’m not holding my breath waiting for SLC to build a $2 billion dollar mall in Atlanta, Georgia.
Maybe that’s more of a function of where the church is HQ’ed, opportunities they see out their front window every day, and maybe that’s changing as investments with good ROI potential are being discovered in divers places. This is a thread derailment. Carry on.
Just to be clear, in my earlier post I did reference you by name in relation to church’s pot of money. I did also refer to subsidizing but perhaps should have been more clear that I was referring to (and agreeing with) OT in that regard. I think we all agree that North America subsidizes other parts of the world and that’s clear from things you point out, Nibbler. A temple in Vanuatu? Most of those people literally have no money. The US with far more members than Canada does provide the bulk of the subsidy, but we can’t overlook the concentration of members in western Canada and the wealth of some of those members.
I also agree that the church does seem to focus it’s efforts in civil projects in SLC and environs. However, they have in some cases done things outside Salt Lake. An example is the area surrounding the Philadelphia temple where the church did indeed gentrify the neighborhood. Another example might be the refurbishing of the Smith farm in Palmyra and the building of the temple there. The church paid millions to move the road from where it had been in front of the Smith house to behind the house, and built a new road where the temple and stake center are located (this road connecting Stafford Road and Route 21). Part of that project also included expanding the Palmyra water and sewer systems to the temple area (a matter of a couple miles). Aside from the church historical reconstruction itself, the infrastructure cost totaled in the millions. Certainly not on the same scale as Utah, but it does happen.
The things you don’t hear about until you do. Thanks DJ. :thumbup: DarkJedi wrote:Just to be clear, in my earlier post I did reference you by name in relation to church’s pot of money. I did also refer to subsidizing but perhaps should have been more clear that I was referring to (and agreeing with) OT in that regard. I think we all agree that North America subsidizes other parts of the world and that’s clear from things you point out, Nibbler. A temple in Vanuatu? Most of those people literally have no money. The US with far more members than Canada does provide the bulk of the subsidy, but we can’t overlook the concentration of members in western Canada and the wealth of some of those members.
I also agree that the church does seem to focus it’s efforts in civil projects in SLC and environs. However, they have in some cases done things outside Salt Lake. An example is the area surrounding the Philadelphia temple where the church did indeed gentrify the neighborhood. Another example might be the refurbishing of the Smith farm in Palmyra and the building of the temple there. The church paid millions to move the road from where it had been in front of the Smith house to behind the house, and built a new road where the temple and stake center are located (this road connecting Stafford Road and Route 21). Part of that project also included expanding the Palmyra water and sewer systems to the temple area (a matter of a couple miles). Aside from the church historical reconstruction itself, the infrastructure cost totaled in the millions. Certainly not on the same scale as Utah, but it does happen.
One point about poor areas of the church. There are many poor areas in foreigh countries that are fast offering positive and many “rich” areas in the Utah and the USA that are fast offering negative. I am of the opinion that the religious poor in the church donate a great deal more than the religious rich – perhaps not in amount but in % of what they have.
The Church owns more land (acreage) in Missouri than any other entity – more than 95% is currently producing agricultural land. There are several other states there the Church owns large sections of agricultural properties. I hinted in a previous post that the Church operates in other countries under various legal corporations – many of which own land and various production facilities where a variety of products are manufactured – mostly under the welfare and humanitarian arm of the Church.
Watcher wrote:
One point about poor areas of the church. There are many poor areas in foreigh countries that are fast offering positive and many “rich” areas in the Utah and the USA that are fast offering negative. I am of the opinion that the religious poor in the church donate a great deal more than the religious rich – perhaps not in amount but in % of what they have.
It is my understanding that the days of measuring fast offering donations and doling them out by region (or stake) are long gone and fast offerings are more of a “big pot” these days. And, in the unlikely event the pot is empty it would be funded from the bigger big pot (tithing). I do get that some areas are far better at giving fast offerings than others, just as some individuals/families are. In my own case I choose not to give to fast offerings due to some past experiences. I would much rather give to local food pantries and charitable organizations such as the Salvation Army where the money is actually spent on those who need it (regardless of whether some local bishop feels they deserve it or not or whether they’re “doing enough”).
And I get your widow’s mite point – but I also have had many conversations regarding whether the church should be asking people who struggle to feed their own families to pay tithing while sitting on hundreds of billions of dollars.
DarkJedi wrote:
And I get your widow’s mite point – but I also have had many conversations regarding whether the church should be asking people who struggle to feed their own families to pay tithing while sitting on hundreds of billions of dollars.
Amen.
They appear to be in a “it’s a commandment” mindset. It’s not about helping the church organization meet its financial needs, it’s about obeying a commandment. The obeying a commandment mindset is blind to the heap of money that the widow’s mite is cast on top of, all it is capable of seeing is there’s a commandment and people will be blessed if they obey. Obedience to the principle calls for the saints to feed the money heap irrespective of its current size. At least that’s what I glean from language being used by leaders. It’s presented as another way to be obedient and earn blessings.
The commandment could be reinterpreted. A tithing of what exactly, gross income, net income, discretionary income, time?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.