David Nielson on 60 Minutes

[Anonymous]

Last evening 60 Minutes aired an interview with “whistleblower” David Nielson. I believe the video and transcript are available free to everyone here: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mormon-whistleblower-ensign-peak-church-investment-fund-allegations-60-minutes-transcript-2023-05-14/” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mormon-whistleblower-ensign-peak-church-investment-fund-allegations-60-minutes-transcript-2023-05-14/

The interview also included Bishop Christopher Waddell of the Presiding Bishopric.

I can’t say there was a whole lot of “new” information, but there was something that jumped out at me because I don’t think I’ve heard it before. I have always heard and understood that the money in the investment fund does not come from tithing funds, but was invested previously. However, the interview asserts that “leftover” tithing (after all expenses are paid) is indeed put into the fund (Waddell wouldn’t confirm any numbers, the piece asserts about $1 billion of $7 billion collected annually).

Quote:

Sharyn Alfonsi: Explain how the tithe is supposed to be used.

David Nielsen: Tithing is what’s used to build buildings, it’s what’s used to pay light bills. Tithing is what’s used to— operate some of the church’s programs.

Whatever is left over — about a billion dollars a year — is put into a reserve fund at Ensign Peak and invested. Because Ensign Peak is registered as a nonprofit, it all grows tax-free.

David Nielsen says since it was created in 1997, the reserve fund has swelled beyond $100 billion — twice the size of Harvard’s endowment or the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

There is a lengthy response piece today in Deseret News: https://www.deseret.com/faith/2023/5/14/23649253/cbs-60-minutes-mormon-lds-church-finance-story-what-it-missed” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.deseret.com/faith/2023/5/14/23649253/cbs-60-minutes-mormon-lds-church-finance-story-what-it-missed

I think this is a poorly written paragraph by Deseret News, but it does seem to confirm that the above is true:

Quote:

The program suggested, again without a source, that the church takes in $7 billion in tithing each year and spends $6 billion on its various religious and charitable causes, investing what remains for a time of need. These funds are managed by an investment arm known as Ensign Peak Advisors, which is not considered a separate entity but rather functions as an “integrated auxiliary” of the church.

The only other thing that really stood out to me in the 60 Minutes piece was Waddell’s weaseling. I know 60 Minutes edits to make their point, but I don’t think Waddell looked good. (I’m using transcript quotes, but watching the video also shows his facial expression and body language, which make him seem all that much more weaselly.)

Quote:

Sharyn Alfonsi: What is the value right now of Ensign Peak’s assets?

Christopher Waddell: Yeah…that’s something I can’t share with you right now. I know there’ve been— there’ve been reports on— on approximates and that kind of thing, and— and that’s as far as we can go right now.

Sharyn Alfonsi: It’s been estimated at $150 billion. Does that sound correct?

Christopher Waddell: That’s an estimate that some have made.

Sharyn Alfonsi: Are we in the ballpark or no?

Christopher Waddell: We have significant resources.

Sharyn Alfonsi: Give us a sense of what percentage is going out the door of the money under management.

Christopher Waddell: To be honest, we— we’ve never looked at it as a percentage. We looked at it based on needs to make sure that we’re comfortable with how many years worth we have in case of financial difficulties, in case of financial crisis to make sure we can continue church operations. We just want to make sure that that is sufficient.

Quote:

The SEC fined the church and Ensign Peak a total of $5 million. Bishop Christopher Waddell told us it was the church’s lawyers who advised them to create the shell companies.

Sharyn Alfonsi: What about, you know, the idea that secrecy builds mistrust?

Christopher Waddell: Well, we don’t feel it’s being secret. We feel it’s being confidential.

Sharyn Alfonsi: What’s the difference?

Christopher Waddell: The difference is-— I guess it’s a point of view… it’s confidential in order to maintain the focus on what our purpose is and what the mission of the church is, rather than the church has X amount of money.

Sharyn Alfonsi: But don’t you agree this would be a non-issue if there was more transparency?

Christopher Waddell: No, because then everyone would be telling us what they wanted us to do with the money.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Sharyn Alfonsi: But don’t you agree this would be a non-issue if there was more transparency?

Christopher Waddell: No, because then everyone would be telling us what they wanted us to do with the money.

People already do that when there’s no transparency. The money managers are also free to ignore any suggestions they receive… just like they do today in an environment in which there’s no transparency.

Shouldn’t members get some input? After all, it’s the church’s money and the members are the church. The money came from members. I don’t think it would be the worst thing in the world for some survey to go out to members where they get to select from a list of approved charities. Of course the church has enough money now to always select the “All of the above” option.

Quote:

The program suggested, again without a source, that the church takes in $7 billion in tithing each year and spends $6 billion on its various religious and charitable causes, investing what remains for a time of need.

Not a bad plan, and we’ve all heard about the rainy day fund. This is my dead horse, but:

1) When is enough enough? So far the answer to that question is enough is never enough… which interesting enough models other aspects of church culture.

2) Teaching people to pay tithing before meeting their basic needs just to toss another dime that will likely end up on top of the church’s hoard feels amoral.

3) What about the individual member’s rainy day fund? Tithing is surely preventing many members from creating their own fund.

Maybe we should move to a model where a member pays 10% on what’s left over after basic living expenses are paid and after members have tucked away about 40 years of living expenses (with the assumption that the member won’t earn one dime in additional income during those 40 years). Up until that point there’s no increase to tithe on because the rainy day savings is much more important.

The assumption is that the church takes in $7 billion per year and spends $6 billion, leaving $1 billion for the investments. That sounds like it’s prime to restore (see what I did there?) the jubilee. After six years the church will have saved $6 billion in the investment account which just so happens to be the amount they need in order to pay the operating expenses for the 7th year. So pay tithing for six years and pay none during the year of jubilee.

Side note: The church is building an insane amount of temples. I’m assuming this is their answer to the question of what to do with all that money. One word of caution, building temples increases the church’s operating expenses. It’s like winning the $1 million lotto, buying a $1 million house, and then not being able to afford to live in it. I could see a situation where the church suffers because they increased their appetite during the years of plenty and now they have a raging appetite for the years of famine.

Maybe that’s not a huge concern. I read somewhere that the mega-wealthy have trouble spending down their money because it grows back at a rate that’s faster that they can spend it. The church may have already reached that point.

[Anonymous]

There was a baffling news release.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/statement-issued-following-cbs-60-minutes-report

Quote:

The Church believes in being financially responsible by carefully ensuring it has adequate resources available to fulfill its divinely appointed responsibilities. To Church members who support the work of salvation through living the gospel of Jesus Christ, caring for those in need, inviting all to receive the gospel and uniting families for eternity, we’ll continue to move forward consistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ which makes this world a better place.

It’s unfortunate ‘60 Minutes’ sought to elevate a story based on unfounded allegations by a former employee who has a different view on how the Church should manage its resources.

First sentence: Okay, I’m with you. I probably would have said divinely appointed mission to avoid reusing responsible in the same sentence. Quibble, quibble.

Second sentence: It’s weird how they shoehorn the fourfold mission into a discussion about intentionally hiding wealth from members and industry regulators but hey, the 4th fold is back! Maybe we’ve attended Sunday School so long that banging on about the threefold (or occasionally fourfold) mission of the church is all we know how to do. What do you want for dinner? Preach the gospel, perfect the saints and redeem the dead. Aw… we had that last night. 👿

Third sentence: The former employee had a different view on how the church should manage its resources… and so did the SEC. Mouth of two witnesses.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

Second sentence: It’s weird how they shoehorn the fourfold mission into a discussion about intentionally hiding wealth from members and industry regulators but hey, the 4th fold is back! Maybe we’ve attended Sunday School so long that banging on about the threefold (or occasionally fourfold) mission of the church is all we know how to do. What do you want for dinner? Preach the gospel, perfect the saints and redeem the dead. Aw… we had that last night. 👿

OK, I but that to some extent. That’s why we pay tithing, to further the work of the church/gospel. I’d much rather my money were spent on helping the poor, which I believe in, than redeeming the dead, which I don’t especially believe in (at least not exactly the way we’re taught). I have said this before – I think it’s abhorrent that we spend millions on temples in places like Vanuatu and Madagascar when those millions cold do wonders to alleviate the suffering of the poor in those places. But there I go telling them how to spend the money…. 😈

Quote:

Third sentence: The former employee had a different view on how the church should manage its resources… and so did the SEC. Mouth of two witnesses.

😆 Yeah, right? Did they think nobody saw the news they were fined by the SEC? And what about the other guy they interviewed on 60 Minutes? Phil Hackney, the former IRS investigator and never a member? Just another guy with a different point of view I suppose. I’m all about different points of view, but sometimes a duck is a duck and a cigar is a cigar no matter what point of view you have.

I’m still stuck on the church somewhat regularly asserting that none of the money in the investment fund was tithing money. But apparently some of it (maybe a billion a year) is tithing money. Even if it’s not a billion, it’s surely several hundred thousand, which is more than none (however math is admittedly not my strong suit).

And I love how the lengthy Deseret News article really was just a couple sentences.

1. We give a billion to charities every year (lather, rinse, repeat and repeat and repeat). Again, math isn’t my strong suit but 1/150 doesn’t equalt even close to 10% (or Mr. Hackney’s 5% threshold non-church nonprofits are held to).

2. We’ve had financial struggles before. (Clearly and by their own admission due to mismanagement – the lawyers were apparently not there to tell them to create shell corporations to hide the debt.)

[Anonymous]

Quote:

It’s unfortunate ‘60 Minutes’ sought to elevate a story based on unfounded allegations by a former employee who has a different view on how the Church should manage its resources.

Good ole playground politics – when you can’t attack the message, attack the messenger.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

To Church members who support the work of salvation through living the gospel of Jesus Christ, caring for those in need, inviting all to receive the gospel and uniting families for eternity, we’ll continue to move forward consistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ which makes this world a better place.

Interesting. Reading between the lines, it appears that some number of faithful LDS have contacted the church with concerns. I’m not entirely sure who the “we” in this sentence is referring to. Is it the church and the faithful members in partnership or just the church organization? Regardless, the answer to the concerns seems to be a non-answer. “We’ll continue to move forward” – we can’t move backwards so that was pretty much a given. “Consistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ” – I feel that this could mean anything from continuing to stockpile money in a rainy day fund or perhaps to increase spending on charitable causes. What it apparently doesn’t mean is to invest in coca-cola or beer companies. That, according to my understanding, is inconsistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ as currently understood in the church. “which makes this world a better place.” no argument here.

I’m concerned that this could all be code for “stay the course” and “business as usual.”

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

I’m still stuck on the church somewhat regularly asserting that none of the money in the investment fund was tithing money. But apparently some of it (maybe a billion a year) is tithing money. Even if it’s not a billion, it’s surely several hundred thousand, which is more than none (however math is admittedly not my strong suit).

I don’t remember the church asserting that. What I think you may be remembering is that specific projects (like the mall) were not funded by tithing contributions. I think this is largely correct. Let’s say that half of the money is direct from tithing contributions and the other half is growth on those invested tithing dollars. The church could spend 50 billion without touching the original tithing seed money. To put it another way, until the balance in the investment account dips below the amount of all tithing money invested then the church can accurately say that no “tithing dollars” have been used for XYZ.

However, I do not believe that there is any attempt to segregate the original tithing money from the growth. Why would there be? It is all there to be used at the discretion of the church for the fulfillment of the church’s mission.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

Maybe that’s not a huge concern. I read somewhere that the mega-wealthy have trouble spending down their money because it grows back at a rate that’s faster that they can spend it. The church may have already reached that point.

Assuming that the number in the investment fund is 100 billion (and not 150), the 5 million dollar SEC fine represents 0.0005% of the total. It is hard to conceptualize how much 100 billion is.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

I don’t remember the church asserting that. What I think you may be remembering is that specific projects (like the mall) were not funded by tithing contributions. I think this is largely correct. Let’s say that half of the money is direct from tithing contributions and the other half is growth on those invested tithing dollars. The church could spend 50 billion without touching the original tithing seed money. To put it another way, until the balance in the investment account dips below the amount of all tithing money invested then the church can accurately say that no “tithing dollars” have been used for XYZ.

I’ve probably mentioned this before but I’d love for the church to give me the paltry sum of $100 million dollars. I’d stick it in a one year CD earning 4% or so. In a year I’ll give back their $100 million, not one penny less.

That $4 million that magically appeared in my account? I’m going to hold on to that because the money the church gave had nothing to do with it.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

DarkJedi wrote:

I’m still stuck on the church somewhat regularly asserting that none of the money in the investment fund was tithing money. But apparently some of it (maybe a billion a year) is tithing money. Even if it’s not a billion, it’s surely several hundred thousand, which is more than none (however math is admittedly not my strong suit).

I don’t remember the church asserting that. What I think you may be remembering is that specific projects (like the mall) were not funded by tithing contributions. I think this is largely correct. Let’s say that half of the money is direct from tithing contributions and the other half is growth on those invested tithing dollars. The church could spend 50 billion without touching the original tithing seed money. To put it another way, until the balance in the investment account dips below the amount of all tithing money invested then the church can accurately say that no “tithing dollars” have been used for XYZ.

However, I do not believe that there is any attempt to segregate the original tithing money from the growth. Why would there be? It is all there to be used at the discretion of the church for the fulfillment of the church’s mission.

You are correct, Roy. I was more thinking back to Pres. Hinckley’s 1991 speech on church finances where he said something to the effect that current church assets and investments dated back to the pioneer era and could not sustain church operations for very long (while admitting the church owned farm property and had significant assets). https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1991/04/the-state-of-the-church?lang=eng” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1991/04/the-state-of-the-church?lang=eng This was a just a few years prior to the formation of Ensign Peak Advisors (1997) and a little more than a decade before purchasing City Creek Mall, etc. I know a great deal has changed between 1991 and now, but I think the seeds of the modern financial standing were indeed already sprouted then.

I agree that it’s not really possible to separate out the seed money, wherever it came from, and the interest earned. It’s a bit like our family finances. Both of our earnings are deposited in our joint checking account. We pay all our bills and make expenditures from that account. I can’t really say that only my money paid the mortgage or only her money paid the electric bill. Likewise, when we transfer to savings I can’t say that only my money or only her money goes to savings.

[Anonymous]

Deseret News has another damage control article today, which reads basically “Why are people picking on us?” (the old Mormon persecution gig again)

https://www.deseret.com/2023/5/15/23724639/church-finances-on-60-minutes-and-americas-fixation-on-mormons-inc” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.deseret.com/2023/5/15/23724639/church-finances-on-60-minutes-and-americas-fixation-on-mormons-inc

Quote:

But like the many treatments of church finances before it, CBS rehashed the so-called whistleblower’s inference that the church’s funds were “never used” for charitable purposes.

That’s quite a claim.

Yet in a program taking up such a serious allegation, it was striking that the wide range of ways these funds are perpetually used by the church to fulfill its mission was never really explored at much length — nor were the legal merits of the whistleblower’s claims examined with much scrutiny.

It is a bit impossible to explore at much length because the church doesn’t (and won’t) release any information about what it spends its money on. The media would likely be a whole lot less interested if there was less “confidentiality” involved. Yes, the media may scrutinize spending on such things as temples or how much GAs are actually paid but there really isn’t much of a story there (other than the claim GAs and others aren’t paid). It works just like the antis and the internet – if the church were to give away the information (as it has been) there’s no “there” there. And I don’t think they’d even have to be very specific (but more specific than we gave a billion to charity) – “We spent 750 million on church colleges, 2 billion on the missionary effort, 100 million on publications, etc.” I think it might also be helpful if they said more than just City Creek (and the many other office and residential buildings and other properties) were investments and say “We took in 500 million in rent and other income from our investment properties.” And finally just own up to how much is in that Ensign Peak fund.

Lastly (maybe, but at least for now) the Deseret News article does make a point that the church does use the money for church purposes and attacks Nielson’s (and CBS’s) assertion the money in the investment fund is never used. In the interview on 60 Minutes Nielson did say the money goes in but never goes out. That appears to be true, with the church presenting no evidence to the contrary.

[Anonymous]

So-called whistleblower. 🙄 What’s the church culture’s fascination with applying the “so-called” label to everything? “So-called” appears in that article twice. I really wish our culture would move away from saying that.

It’s my understanding that Ensign Peak investments have only had two withdrawals, one for City Creek and one for Beneficial Life. I have to assume that’s true.

When Nielson says the church doesn’t use Ensign Peak investments for charities I think that’s what he’s referring to. City Creek and Beneficial Life aren’t charities and I think Nielson was only speaking to one very specific fund.

It feels like the pro-church side of the debate is arguing against a claim that the church doesn’t make any charitable contributions at all. No one is saying that. That’s a strawman. What’s being claimed is that there aren’t charitable donations that are sourced from Ensign Peak investments.

But with the lack of transparency it’s the blind arguing against the blind.

Quote:

In a broadcast that aired Sunday, the CBS television program “60 Minutes” recycled four-year-old complaints about how The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints handles its finances.

The age of the complaints and how many times the complaints have been stated do not speak to the legitimacy of said complaints. Maybe people keep bringing them up because they’re valid issues that continue to be ignored.

Quote:

The church has money. It prefers not to disclose every dollar publicly. Ergo, something nefarious must be taking place.

Every dollar? There’s no transparency at all. The church prefers not to disclose anything. People aren’t concerned over individual dollars. They’re concerned with over a hundred billions of dollars.

A lack of transparency usually does raise suspicion. It’s natural. A cop pulls a person over and wants to search their car. The person refuses and asks the cop to get a warrant. There’s very likely nothing illegal in the car, the person is just exercising their rights with a pushy cop, but then there’s the large crowd of people that think that the person has something to hide or that if the person wasn’t guilty they’d let the cop search the car without creating a scene. The reaction is natural.

Transparency in this case doesn’t even have to do with suspicions of nefarious somethings. I think the main point of contention in this case is more aligned with opportunity costs. What difference billions parked in investments could be making in the world but aren’t… because it’s parked in investments. Sin of omission, not commission.

What kind of community could each ward build if it was better funded? There are billions in investments accounts and members at the local level are bled dry at every opportunity because ward budgets are too small. Maybe that qualifies as nefarious, I don’t know.

Quote:

This same story plays out every few decades, despite the church’s commendable self-reliance and efficiency of its humanitarian efforts.

And it will continue to play out for decades more until there’s more transparency. That simple. It’s an issue of trust. The church has lost that trust with a lot of people. You don’t win back trust by continuing to fight against transparency.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

It’s my understanding that Ensign Peak investments have only had two withdrawals, one for City Creek and one for Beneficial Life. I have to assume that’s true.

I also assume that’s true, and I’m more or less OK with spending the interest on investments to fund something like City Creek. “Our investments earned 10 billion this year and we spent a billion of it on City Creek and left the rest to earn more interest. Additionally, from rent and fees we will earn the billion back in 10 years.” I’m less OK with the Beneficial Financial bailout because the bailout wouldn’t have been necessary if it was managed properly, and it’s difficult to see how or if the church will get a return on that (60 Minutes insinuated they won’t). I would be more OK if they spent the hypothetical 10 billion on feeding the poor, and it sounds like that’s really David Nielson’s point.

BUT, there are lots more building projects that don’t hit the news (probably on purpose). Here’s a Deseret News article from a few weeks ago:

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2022/4/8/23013827/a-wonderful-gathering-place-church-unveils-new-urban-meetinghouse-in-salt-lake-city” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.deseret.com/faith/2022/4/8/23013827/a-wonderful-gathering-place-church-unveils-new-urban-meetinghouse-in-salt-lake-city

This article highlights that there is a multi-ward meetinghouse as part of this building in downtown SLC, mentioning the office building itself in passing:

Quote:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has built a 39,000-square-foot, four-story meetinghouse at the base of a new commercial office tower called 95 State at City Creek, complete with a steeple jutting skyward next to its entrance on the north side of the building….

The new building is the third tallest in Salt Lake City, standing at 395 feet with 25 stories. Construction started in April 2019 and endured a 5.7 magnitude earthquake, a global pandemic that interrupted the global supply chain, and multiple wind events.

And under “additional notes”:

Quote:

The tower and meetinghouse were developed by City Creek Reserve, a real estate investment affiliate of the church.

Okland Construction was the general contractor. Church tithes were not used to construct the office tower.

So what money was used? Income from other properties? Ensign Peak money? Shell corporations? Bank financing?

AND, this building is far from the only one constructed and/or owned by the church. Wikipedia contains a list of buildings owned by Utah Property Management Associates which is owned by the church: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Property_Management_Associates” class=”bbcode_url”>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Property_Management_Associates

And this site lists buildings owned by City Creek Reserve mentioned in the above DN article: https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/company/8193” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/company/8193

And these aren’t all, and there are more outside SLC but I’m going to jump off the soapbox for now because I have stuff to do (like mow the lawn).

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

I agree that it’s not really possible to separate out the seed money, wherever it came from, and the interest earned. It’s a bit like our family finances. Both of our earnings are deposited in our joint checking account. We pay all our bills and make expenditures from that account. I can’t really say that only my money paid the mortgage or only her money paid the electric bill. Likewise, when we transfer to savings I can’t say that only my money or only her money goes to savings.

I like that analogy. I do think that church leaders saying that no tithing dollars were spent on XYZ project is just like if you were to say that only your wife’s money was used to pay the electric bill. It is true enough that her contribution to the joint bank account is greater than the electric bill so if it is important to you to draw that line in the sand then go ahead. (I am really leaning hard into my “line in the sand” metaphor because the line is arbitrary and meaningless)

nibbler wrote:

I’ve probably mentioned this before but I’d love for the church to give me the paltry sum of $100 million dollars. I’d stick it in a one year CD earning 4% or so. In a year I’ll give back their $100 million, not one penny less.

That $4 million that magically appeared in my account? I’m going to hold on to that because the money the church gave had nothing to do with it.

Yes, even if the original $100 million were tithing dollars it could technically be said that no tithing dollars were “spent” since it all was repaid.

It reminds me of the “carefully worded denials” that were employed to obscure the practice of polygamy during the early days of the church.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

Deseret News has another damage control article today, which reads basically “Why are people picking on us?” (the old Mormon persecution gig again)

https://www.deseret.com/2023/5/15/23724639/church-finances-on-60-minutes-and-americas-fixation-on-mormons-inc” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.deseret.com/2023/5/15/23724639/church-finances-on-60-minutes-and-americas-fixation-on-mormons-inc

“Never used”

I think it is generally a mistake to say never or always. I think it would be better for the whistleblower to say “almost never used” or “I do not have any direct knowledge that these funds were ever used.”

Quote:

it was striking that the wide range of ways these funds are perpetually used by the church to fulfill its mission was never really explored at much length

I felt that this sentence was later contradicted by the following:

Quote:

As the whistleblower himself says during the CBS program, church reserve investments are more like a 401(k) (long-term savings), and the other funds are more like a checking account for ongoing operational expenses. But as any financial planner would tell you, perhaps aside from the whistleblower, you don’t draw on your 401(k) except in the event of an emergency.

Sooooo the funds referenced in “these funds are perpetually used” is talking about the operational accounts and not the investment accounts and there seems to be an admission that the investment account functions as a rainy day or emergency fund that would be almost never used.

Quote:

Even by the whistleblower’s admission, the church spends billions each year on its charitable causes. And since Ensign Peak, the church’s investment arm, is part of the totality of the church’s organization — functioning legally as an incorporated auxiliary of the church — the insinuation the church doesn’t disburse its funds is simply disingenuous. This idea depends on the claim that the church’s investment fund is entirely separate from the church — it’s not, legally or otherwise.

Sooo because Ensign Peak is structured as an auxiliary of the church and not an independent organization (like beneficial life or Deseret industries or Deseret news) then we can speak of the funds overseen by Ensign Peak as “not tithing funds” when it suits us and also lump it together with the church’s charitable spending when it suits us. What a quagmire of shifting goalposts!

I wonder who came up with the idea to create Ensign Peak as an “incorporated auxiliary of the church” and not a separate enterprise that is owned by the church. Was it the same team of lawyers that advised the church leadership to create shell companies to obfuscate the total amount of church controlled investments that got the church into hot water with the SEC?

[Author]

Posts