- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
This is an old talk from 1991 by GBH, but amidst the flak the Church sometimes gets about its assets and wealth, I thought it might be an interesting read. It is 20 years old, but I wonder if things have changed much in recent times given the apparently conservative policies held by the people who manage the Church: http://lds.org/ensign/1991/05/the-state-of-the-church?lang=eng The thing that got me is that no building owned by the Church has debt.
This would make sense financially — as I question whether a charitable organization would be able to write off interest payments anyway, since they probably have a favorable tax status and may not pay taxes (I am not versed in these things). It would make sense for all the debt to be held by commercial entities so an interest tax deduction can be generated to reduce tax liabilities….
The LDS Church nearly lost its existence only a century ago, and it almost was bankrupt only a few decades ago. That’s worth considering when you try to understand the Church’s near obsession with staying out of debt as much as possible. All other things aside, I will add that the Church’s debt-free status is one thing I admire greatly – given the teaching to its members about avoiding unncessary debt. Nobody can claim it’s hypocritical in this regard.
Ray, or anyone — Ray said the Church almost went bankrupt a few decades ago — was that around the late 1960’s this almost happened? When approximately did this happen? I did a google search and couldn’t find anything. SilentDawning wrote:Ray, or anyone — Ray said the Church almost went bankrupt a few decades ago — was that around the late 1960’s this almost happened? When approximately did this happen? I did a google search and couldn’t find anything.
The book “Mormon America” referenced this briefly. If I remember correctly, the book said that it happened right after the church became so secretive about finances and that it was not known by many at the time.
Don’t you guys think a church should be nearly broke at all times? If they are hording cash, there is a lot of needy that aren’t being served. I was saddened to hear of yet another temple project on the Wasatch front announced today. We just built 2 and now there will be 9 within an hours drive here around Salt Lake. So many people are in need right now and we want to dump millions into making temple worship slightly more convenient for a few? Also, why does the church need to build a big mall down by temple square? It just seems like we should be over in Africa feeding babies or something.
Quote:Don’t you guys think a church should be nearly broke at all times?
No. Absolutely not.
I will try to get back and add more at some point, but my short answer is, “No.”
In the meantime, the following might be informative:
“Helping the Living vs. the Dead” (
http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1186&hilit=mall “Temples too many, a sign of our decline” (
http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=661&hilit=mall “Reconciling Money and the Church” (
http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1611&hilit=mall Ghandi said that he believed charitable organizations should only have as much money as they need to meet their obligations — otherwise, they tend to act WITHOUT accountability to their members. I guess the logic is that is that if you are so incredibly dependent on your membership for your financial existence, you will take their needs into deep consideration lest they stop donating. From Ghandi’s perspective, being close to the line financially was a mechanism to promote integrity and responsiveness to the needs of the organization’s membership. Now, GBH said that the Church is firmly dependent on tithing funds because its business interests couldn’t possibly fund the Church operations for long, which mitigates Ghandi’s statement a bit. But I tend to agree a bit with the post above that says we are probably very awash with cash to the point the needs of members may not be at the forefront. For example, I have seen first hand how underfunded the local Ward budgets can be, as well as local services like LDS Social Services. Yet we continue to invest in temples in densely populated Mormon areas.
I also think the culture of not speaking out about things you’re not happy with (supplemented by temple covenants related to leadership) also tends to dampen the kind of feedback our organization could use to really get in touch with how the members are feeling about their Church experience.
However, lest I grow too negative. It is positive that TSM announced a Temple Patron fund people can give to, which can be used for improverished people in remote areas to travel to the temple, one time. My initial reaction was that it would be nice if the funds were made available from all the surplus tithing, and not placed on the backs of the general membership, but at least some provision is being made for people who can’t get to a temple because they can’t afford the travel.
Operates tax free in many countries, and in some parts of northern Europe, such as Germany, there is also a church tax. SilentDawning wrote:Ray, or anyone — Ray said the Church almost went bankrupt a few decades ago — was that around the late 1960’s this almost happened? When approximately did this happen? I did a google search and couldn’t find anything.
When Henry D. Moyle was in the First Presidency he based the building program on membership growth. Unfortunately the pressure to baptize from him led to the baseball baptism fiasco in England and in many other areas baptisms of persons who never attended. Cash flow reached a crisis point where for several months the church was almost not able to make payroll. Elder Tanner was brought down from Canada, made a member of the First Presidency, and immediately instituted a hiring and building freeze and assumed responsibility for directing financial operations. Pres. Moyle was relieved of his responsibilities in the First Presidency though not released and ended his career in a quiet disgrace. Prior to his initiatives with expansion the financial plan had been that any margin in a year became the budget for the following year but with Moyle that all went out the window with not quite bankruptcy as the consequence.
One thing that never did quite go away from that era has been the pressure to baptize at all costs by some mission presidents but that’s for another thread.
Thanks — I thought it was J. Reuben Clark who was the financial turnaround artist – thanks for clarifying it was N. Eldon Tanner. Sounds to me that the policy that the margin for last year was the budget for the coming year is like living without saving…that’s not a good approach to financial management. I read that Tanner’s freeze was to allow the Church to have time to build reserves and savings. I think individuals should manage themselves the same way.
Quote:Unfortunately the pressure to baptize from him led to the baseball baptism fiasco in England and in many other areas baptisms of persons who never attended.
I thought that was Chile, and that it was basketball?!
:
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.