- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
nibbler wrote:
For most people I imagine it’s less about the legality of amassing a hoard and more about the morality of amassing a hoard.Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow… their portfolio?
Maybe Jacob Marley and some ghosts will visit someone this Christmas Eve.
Maybe N. Eldon Tanner. The history of amassing a “rainy day fund” pretty much goes back to him following the most recent church financial crisis which was during the McKay administration (although not necessarily McKay’s fault, I think McKay disagreed with some of what was happening and some of it was happening without his knowledge/approval). As a “good man of business” Tanner may have been specifically called because of his investment talent.
We do have a personal rainy day fund, and it makes good financial sense if you’re able to do it (we have not always been in that position). We also do make charitable contributions, and not only to the church. On a personal/family level it’s a little different because it’s money we earned and how we spend it is up to us. But a rainy day fund is not all that unusual in any solvent organization, including government organizations (although laws do sometimes limit such savings). I don’t have a problem with the church having savings/investments even though it is “other people’s money” (depending on your point of view on the “Lord’s funds”). I guess the question is how much is too much and could there be a purpose other than self preservation that at least some of it could be used for? Jesus didn’t make the matter any less muddy with the story about the ointments. So, yeah, I think the news item is about legality but perhaps in the minds of at least some of the membership it’s more about morality.
After gritting my teeth a bit and trying to step back, here is my take. On one level this is not specific to the LDS church. At least in the US this is a political question of the purpose and rules around religious non-profits. The main conclusion I come from here and feel the most important things would be for “large” religious non-profits to be required to submit publicly available financial reports.
As a member, I have a harder time. Given how much $ I have given and even more importantly, how hard the leadership requires tithing – especially comments like “if you don’t have money for food, pay your tithing.” That feels to me like forcing lower-income people to be dependent upon the church. If you pay tithing THEN we will give you food from the bishop’s storehouse. For members with higher income, there is the “you have to pay the country club fees if you want to attend a wedding there (yes – they have relaxed this a bit, but still LOTS of social, logistical, and cost pressures to “just do the temple wedding”). So as a member I would like to see more disclosure and in the end, I have to decide if I want to continue to pay tithing or not. I am currently contemplating changing my status.
LookingHard wrote:
…especially comments like “if you don’t have money for food, pay your tithing.” That feels to me like forcing lower-income people to be dependent upon the church. If you pay tithing THEN we will give you food from the bishop’s storehouse.
Piggybacking on this.
I don’t think having a rainy day fund is at the heart of any question over morality, it’s perhaps more related to how that rainy day fund is obtained.
To take the morality over having a massive rainy day fund out of the equation, let’s say that having a rainy day fund is best practice and given the nature of anxiety people have over the uncertainty of future events, it’s also okay to have a rainy day fund in any amount; no amount is too large. Individuals and organizations alike should have and attempt to build up a rainy day fund.
When leaders preach that members should pay tithing even when they have no money for food in a way they are putting their rainy day fund ahead of a member’s ability to meet their current basic needs. The church truly doesn’t need the money. What’s more important, growing a $100 billion portfolio so the church can take care of themselves in the event of a decades long emergency, or a member dealing with an emergency they are currently facing?
Preaching that tithing should be paid before the basics also creates an environment where it will be very difficult for the member to build up their personal rainy day fund. It can set up a system where the church’s already enormous rainy day fund takes priority over a member’s rainy day fund.
It can feel like there are two standards:
The standard the church teaches the members – make tithing a priority, pay tithing before basic life essentials.
The standard the church follows – pay all the bills first, set aside the surplus, don’t give from the surplus until a rainy day fund with a theoretical limit has been reached.
If the member were to follow a similar pattern for paying tithing it would look more like a surplus model that factors in a personal rainy day fund.
1) Pay all bills.
2) Set aside some money for a rainy day.
3) If there are any leftovers, 10% on that.
If you can’t afford food you don’t make it past step 1 and don’t owe tithing.
I suppose the issue is that many members believe paying tithing is a basic life essential.
This is more down to leadership roulette, but the other issue is how members in financial straits are helped by the church. There’s the expectation that the member has exhausted all other sources of help, family, friends, government programs. There’s the expectation that a member be a full tithe payer… which again I would point out is against church policy as it presupposes that the surplus model is invalid. If a person operates under the surplus model and they can’t pay their bills they have $0 titheable income, they haven’t met their basic needs. There may be an expectation that the member do chores around the church. Even though there shouldn’t be expectations attached to paying tithing, the member may have paid in tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in tithing and still be denied tens or hundreds of dollars in their hour of need. The money that helps members in need comes from fast offerings, something in addition to tithing, meaning the church doesn’t use its surplus to foot the bill, it asks the members to shoulder the additional burden. All this factors into the emotional aspect.
What would the church do in the event of a global financial crisis? Right away, their investment nest egg would take a massive hit. When that happens it might cause the people in control of the purse strings to tighten their grip due to increased anxiety over the fate of the church… but if not, would the church adopt a new more charitable approach to helping members or would it follow well worn roads?
If a prolonged crisis does happen, I think sitting on $100 billion has the potential to set up a dangerous dynamic. A poor member needs assistance, the church is the only org in town in a position to help. To get help you have to clean the church three nights a week, do 100% ministering assignments, take 10 names to the temple per month, attend all your meetings, magnify a calling,
join the church, etc. I think that kind of wealth has the potential to create an unhealthy power dynamic. It doesn’t even have to be at the institutional level, local leadership roulette would be all that it takes. I agree with what nibbler said. Especially: nibbler wrote:
…If the member were to follow a similar pattern for paying tithing it would look more like a surplus model that factors in a personal rainy day fund.1) Pay all bills.
2) Set aside some money for a rainy day.
3) If there are any leftovers, 10% on that.
If you can’t afford food you don’t make it past step 1 and don’t owe tithing.
The only thing I might add is:
4) Put together a household budget
5) Live within your budget, as much as possible.
6) Rainy day money is for emergencies.
7) If you “borrow” from the rainy day fund, pay it back.
There are two pieces of advice that individuals and organizations ought to follow: don’t mess with people’s kids and don’t mess with people’s money. I think we see both of these problems rearing their heads in the Church. The recent concerns over interviews of youth (which I won’t comment on) and now the consideration of the Church’s wealth based upon the tithing of its rich AND poor members. It can be a bit hard to swallow when some members are living in poverty-like conditions and still paying tithing. But I do believe that for most who pay, it is an act of faith on their part rather than a means to access resources like the temple. I’m pretty sure that the general membership (those who are even aware of this story) would respond with a “so what” shrug. In fact, many (rich and poor) would probably take some pride that their Church is so wealthy. That said, how much amassed wealth is too much? What percentage of spending on charitable concerns is adequate? There may be laws regarding this (which I’m not familiar with) but ultimately the answers to these questions are arbitrary. I appreciate the concerns expressed here and I consider them legitimate. I also am very convinced that the leadership of the Church is well-intentioned and are probably operating from a different set of assumptions (regarding money) than the rest of us. To clarify my own thinking I will lay out my money concerns about the Church:
1. Fast offerings that aren’t used by a ward are forwarded to the Church Office Building. I don’t know how often that occurs but I believe that to be the case. It would be nice if wards could retain some kind of surplus for future ward member needs.
2. I attended a meeting where our stake president made it very clear that donations to missionaries are to the missionary fund…not to the individual missionary. Thus, if a missionary comes home early, those members of ward or family who donated can’t get “their money back.” It’s a charitable donation not a means to support an individual missionary (though it is used that way). I really don’t have a huge problem with the policy but the fact that it had to be stated the way it was (and our stake president did it very kindly but firmly) makes the Church look…a bit acquisitive.
3. I sometimes resent being asked to do things as a member that someone could be paid to do. I don’t mean clean our ward building. I don’t mind doing that (though I question how clean bathrooms get with inexperienced members using inadequate cleaning supplies). But our local stakes are regularly asked to put together a team of people to clean our local temple. Uh, no. The cleaning has to take place late at night (one time volunteers were asked to come at 10 but now they ask them to come at 8…I think they didn’t get many takers initially) and I refuse to clean a building I only use occasionally (maybe once a month) when there’s more than enough funds to pay someone to do it.
4. The Church spends huge amounts of money (though its probably only a fraction of a fraction of their overall budget) making everything in the general Church look clean and shiny. It’s not a bad thing and many members take great pride in the temple grounds, the visitor’s centers, and the Church universities’ facilities. Yet, as I walk around BYU or any other general Church facility, there’s something about its absolutely pristine condition that feels a bit false. It’s kind of like a home with a living room that no one ever goes into (except home teachers/ministers with shoes off). Beautiful but artificial. I prefer the lived-in quality of the public universities and the chapels. They may be a bit frayed around the edges but at least you can leave your shoes on.
Just my thoughts.
Reflecting on Jesus Christ, his life seemed to be an open book. When it comes to our day of judgement, our life will be an open book too. Shouldn’t Christ’s church be as open to the membership with their financial transactions?
My personal belief is: when my money leaves my bank account, it’s not my money anymore.
For me to think otherwise will make me angry & resentful.
Minyan Man wrote:
Reflecting on Jesus Christ, his life seemed to be an open book. When it comes to our day of judgement, our lifewill be an open book too. Shouldn’t Christ’s church be as open to the membership with their financial transactions?
My personal belief is: when my money leaves my bank account, it’s not my money anymore.
For me to think otherwise will make me angry & resentful.
My feelings EXACTLY.
I am just confused about this story however. Are people upset with how much money the church has, or how they get all that money? I tend to struggle with stories like this. There is just so much misinformation that gets spread around. I really don’t know what is true, what the whistle blowers motivation is and so forth. It is however never good to keep anything in the dark. If the church violated tax laws then bad on them. Pay the proper taxes where they need to be and so on.
I tend to trust users on this site more than I do the media’s these days. The media is in the business of shock and awe. Almost never about getting to the full truth. And therefore OP and others, thanks for trying your best to explain this without any bias one way or another.
There are many ways to view financial issues. What concerns I may have are different to someone else. For example, there are some very rich people in the church who donate to BYU or other charities. For
their donation, they will get their names attached to a building, receive publicity or attention from General
Authorities. Yet according to the story of the Widow’s Mite, her donation is the bigger sacrifice. (Plus, there
is no tax benefit for her donation.)
This is not a defense of the Church, directly, but we have romanticized Jesus’ ministry in many ways. His disciples included a physician, a tax collector, and a treasurer. It solicited donations from wealthy individuals. It was a ministry that was funded by donations. In many ways, it could be considered a “professional” ministry. It served the poor and the helpless, but it did so by taking donations to cover its expenses.
One more point:
Paul was able to travel so much for one or two reasons. His travel either was funded by member donations or his own personal wealth obtained from his previous job (being a lawyer and kind of a hit man for the Sanhedrin). Either way, there had to have been funding sources that aren’t recorded explicitly in the summaries focused on the mission alone.
Also, as a bit of a defense, the Church has been increasing its non-LDS charitable donations regularly for the last 10 years, at least. I assume there is an attempt to donate more as the assets grow.
Again, I personally am concerned about multiple issues relative to this story, but it still appears to me, after reading multiple analyses by financial and tax experts, that the Church did nothing illegal in any way. As others have said, the core issue for me is the morality of such massive assets – but I do believe the leadership is sincere in its focus on managing the resources properly. I have a personal connection to that opinion (that is not my own, personal experience), and I am satisfied the intentions are pure.
I understand everyone’s concerns, and I share some of them, but it is important to me that I try to be as balanced as I can be when considering the overall issue.
Old Timer wrote:I understand everyone’s concerns, and I share some of them, but it is important to me that I try to be as balanced as I can be when considering the overall issue.
I think you said it best right there
There is an additional painful side to this story – A broken family. The “Whistleblower” didn’t want this to become public knowledge. His brother or cousin who is an attorney was the real “Whistleblower” – he was the one who went public with it.
Sadly, I could spend hours on how painful and complicated this entire thing is – from the church’s choices to individuals. What I do know is that it is proof to me that when we engage in anything, that doesn’t have real love and caring behind it, we create war, strife, and sorrow. This is our world. We’ve made it what it is.
The entire exposure, awareness, etc, breaks my heart – for all of us.
nibbler wrote:
LookingHard wrote:
…especially comments like “if you don’t have money for food, pay your tithing.” That feels to me like forcing lower-income people to be dependent upon the church. If you pay tithing THEN we will give you food from the bishop’s storehouse.
Piggybacking on this.
I don’t think having a rainy day fund is at the heart of any question over morality, it’s perhaps more related to how that rainy day fund is obtained.
To take the morality over having a massive rainy day fund out of the equation, let’s say that having a rainy day fund is best practice and given the nature of anxiety people have over the uncertainty of future events, it’s also okay to have a rainy day fund in any amount; no amount is too large. Individuals and organizations alike should have and attempt to build up a rainy day fund.
When leaders preach that members should pay tithing even when they have no money for food in a way they are putting their rainy day fund ahead of a member’s ability to meet their current basic needs. The church truly doesn’t need the money. What’s more important, growing a $100 billion portfolio so the church can take care of themselves in the event of a decades long emergency, or a member dealing with an emergency they are currently facing?
Preaching that tithing should be paid before the basics also creates an environment where it will be very difficult for the member to build up their personal rainy day fund. It can set up a system where the church’s already enormous rainy day fund takes priority over a member’s rainy day fund.
This is why i think it’s a bigger deal for those of us who are mentally out.I “don’t care” how much the church makes from tithing, we can chose to pay or not to pay. The problem for me, which has been pointed out, is that those who are trying their best to do what they think is right in the church are being “hurt”. The church did indeed publish statements through general conference that “tithing before bills”, “tithing before rent”. The church in certain areas has been pounding the idea that if you don’t pay your tithing not only do you “lose blessings” and aren’t worthy to enter the temple, but your choice will affect others. This attitude was put in my mind on my mission. I was taught to assume it was my responsibility, and thus fault, if I didn’t say the right words to an investigator who ended up not getting baptized. We’d hear the stories of the one person we didn’t try to contact “meeting us in the afterlife and asking why we didn’t tell her if it was all true”. This toxic culture has expanded into the commandments. But worse of all, in my opinion, is the denial and/or “confusion” the church has claiming to have when these issues become public.
For example, president Ballard earlier this year stated “Church leaders don’t know where these practices began” when referring to a quote in preach my gospel that instructed missionaries to consider inviting investigators to baptism after just the first encounter / lesson. Ballard said to avoid that. This “controversy” wouldn’t have been anything if he had simply said “we have mentioned in the past to find opportunities to invite investigators to baptism during the first lesson, but we have learned that this is not effective. We now ask that you avoid doing so unless the spirit specifically prompts you otherwise”. Instead, they jabbed at not just the currently serving missionaries but those of us who HAVE served in the past -raises hand- and were told to do just that. “Church leaders don’t know where these practices began” is a way to say “it never happened, this was your imagination and you are wrong for thinking it’s right. stop it and repent.”
Another example of this was when Nelson spoke at BYU’s fall semester devotional. For some reason he felt the need to remind everyone about the church’s ugly November policy conflict and controversy. But for me what really sold the attitude was when he said “We knew that this policy created concern and confusion for some and heartache for others. That grieved us. Whenever the sons and daughters of God weep—for whatever reasons—we weep.” The for whatever reason statement seemed to say that the number of youth lgbt suicides in the church, in utah and in general (many as a reaction to the policy) either never happened or were irrelevant to the policy. He could have said “we are mournful for those who have identified in the community and have chosen or felt otherwise to leave us from this earth. We recognize that recent policies have created separations in families and we wish to find a way to honor and obey god’s commandments while avoiding these terrible tragedies.” instead, he said “for whatever reasons”.
I guess my point is, as someone who was fully active and believing most of my life, i now see problems with the way that the church responds to controversies that end up worse than they should have been. While i really don’t care about how much the church has collected, i do wish that the church were to realize that they have told struggling families and individuals to “pay tithing before…” and when these faithful struggling members see the church holding onto so much money, and feeling unable to get the help they personally need because “tithing before…”, but to then see the church deny that there is anything wrong with what they have done (in their recent videos where they tried to defend their spending procedures), just makes me realize why there’s emotion in this.
We are taught to confess our sins and repent. But i just have not seen the church admit as much as i think they should, that they have made mistakes, said the wrong things and hurt families.
Amen, Mom3. Thank you for that reminder. Just like Ed Smart being forced to deal with his sexuality publicly by a family member broadcasting it, people do terrible things to other people with all kinds of excuses.
I know that I am beating a dead horse here but I find it fascinating. I am providing a link and excerpts from tax experts on the legality of the church’s investment/securities holdings. Underlining for emphasis is added by me. (Spoiler alert: The church will not likely be in any kind of trouble with the IRS). https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2019/12/20/more-on-the-mormon-ensigngate/#13e8bc237f41 Quote:The Washington Post Expert
I heard from Professor Phillip Hackney who was quoted in the Washington Post story:
“`If you have a charity that simply amasses a war chest year after year and does not spend any money for charity purposes, that does not meet the requirements of tax law,’ Hackney said in an interview. Hackney, who served in the IRS chief counsel’s office, has been retained by The Post to analyze the whistleblower documents.”
I wrote to Professor Hackney citing my article and soliciting his opinion. I wrote:
“My thinking was that if it was an integrated auxiliary of the church it is really the church accumulating and there is really no rule about that. I consulted with a couple of people who should know and that seems to be the common view.”
He responded:
“Yes. I saw your piece. I actually generally agree with what you say. In some sense I think what we are witnessing is the asking and answering of different questions. Reality is the church likely has sufficient technical reasons to pursue the path it has pursued. But what I was being asked was whether the brothers raised legitimate concerns. I think they do and still think so…..
Now, Ensign will almost surely argue that it is an integral part of the church. Furthermore the church pays out lots of money every year from its tithing. If we view total expense in comparison to endowment if there were some payout requirement it would be met. That may be so and because of that the IRS would almost surely never challenge this situation. Nevertheless I do think that as a charitable tax law matter such an endowment that only ever invests money and never pays out raises real questions of the moral ought of the law. And I think that has to be the case even with a church…
I thought when I reviewed the WB complaint it would be a nothing. In a very technical sense I think it is a nothing. But, I still thought and think now that the brothers raised legitimate concerns worthy of raising attentionto….. So if the question is will the church lose its status, the answer is almost surely no. But if the question is whether the brothers raised real and legitimate questions that touch seriously on tax law in its largest sense, the answer is yes.”
Quote:Bottom Line
Of all the experts I have communicated with Professor Brunson is the one with most serious concerns about Ensign. So I looked to him for the bottom line on the chance that there will be a tab in the billions for Ensign to pay if the IRS takes the whistleblower complaint seriously. Here is our email exchange in interview format:
Reilly – Suppose there was no separate tax exempt involved. Is there any question about how much wealth the church could accumulate?
Brunson – No, not really. I mean, there may be moral/religious/ethical questions, but if it invested in-house, it would qualify under 501(c)(3) as an exempt org with a religious purpose. I suppose at some point, investment goals could swamp religious ones, but I’m not sure at what level that would be.
Reilly – It seems like the commensurate thing would be based on a charity that was formed to raise and invest to support the religion in general and never spent anything. Ensign has a problem there. But if it is integrated maybe it is just a pocketbook for the church which puts it back to the previous question.
Brunson -Right. I’m not completely sure how the commensurate-in-scope rule applies to integrated auxiliaries (or even if it does). In most situations, it would need to qualify as exempt on its own, but if it can rest its exemption on being really tightly connected to the Mormon church, then there’s probably not a problem.
Reilly – Assuming IRS were to revoke Ensign’s status, is there any chance at all that it would be retroactive? Or would they just turn the money over to the church and fade away?
Brunson – There’s always a chance, I suppose.
But the law as it applies here seems ambiguous at best; to the extent Ensign Peak was on the wrong side of the line, I think it has a strong argument that it wasn’t deliberately there.I would think retroactivity would be really unlikely here. The SLTribune comes to a similar conclussion
https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/12/20/despite-whistleblower/ Again, these opinions address the legality of the holdings and do not really spend much time on other effects of the Whistleblower’s claim.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.