- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’m confused about the business organization of the Church. It is described as “The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints” as its official name. This implies it’s a corporation, which is usually for-profit. However, it issues tax deduction slips for donations, which implies its a charitable organization. And finally, it has significant business interests — do they fall under a separate legal entity? I think it fits this organization definition: Quote:Nonprofit CorporationDefinition: A business organization that serves some public purpose and therefore enjoys special treatment under the law. Nonprofit corporations, contrary to their name, can make a profit but can’t be designed primarily for profit-making.
Internally, it acts primarily as two very different organizations – “The Church” and “The Corporation . . .” (I say “primarily” because it also has other organizations, like its charitable foundation, but all of them fall within the broad parameters of the first two.) The revenue sources are radically different, as are the expenditure paths. One is not taxed; the other is.
Frankly, that’s the primary reason for the auditing announcement each year in GC. It simply says, in a nutshell, “We keep our operations distinct and separate. We don’t mix funds, and we conform to the differing rules in all of our financial dealings.”
I know that Mormon Stories has an interesting podcast (149-152), with Daymon Smith, on this topic. From that I remember that the Church is a “corporation sole” same as the Catholic Church. It only has one office and that is the president of the the Church. Also, it is my understanding that their is no legal entity called “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints” it is actually a trade mark of the “corporation sole”. So unlike other churches where you actually become a member or shareholder in that church when you are baptized we are not joining any legal entity.
I also know that the Church owns several other corporations, like Intellectual Reserve Inc which holds all of the copyrights of the Church.
If you are interested I think the podcast was very interesting.
The “Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints” is a very unusual and archaic form of corporation called a “Corporation Sole.” This dates back in history to organizations like Catholic religious orders who needed to have an owner, but needed to transfer the ownership by title and not by transfer of stock. So … the current President of the Church actually owns the corporation, completely. There are not any shareholders. The corporate charter declares that the person who holds the title “President of the Church,” in that office, owns the corporation. So when the existing President dies, a new one is elected, and that person automatically becomes the new owner. It bypasses probate (I believe that’s the right term, not a lawyer) and his personal estate has no claim on the assets of the corporation. Like I said, it was originally used in organizations like The Jesuit Order (example, I don’t know that for a fact). When the head Prior dies, the Catholic Church doesn’t want all the assets of the order transfered via that person’s estate to his closest relatives, as would be normal for a regular business. There are other corporations that hold different properties as subsidiaries though. Intellectual Reserve, Inc. holds a lot of the copyrighted intellectual property. I think there’s also a corporation associated with the Presiding Bishopric. There are also other corporations that organize the for-profit activities of the Church.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints doesn’t actually exist as a legal entity. It’s essentially a trademark name. Shocking huh? Thus Daymon Smith’s book title: “The Book of Mammon: A Book About A Book About The Corporation That Owns The Mormons” The legal entity that USED to be our Church was legally dissolved in the late 1800’s when the Federal gov’t was clamping down on the Mormons, during that whole battle over polygamy.
The depth of the knowledge of you guys amazes me sometimes. SilentDawning wrote:I’m confused about the business organization of the Church. It is described as “The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints” as its official name.
This implies it’s a corporation, which is usually for-profit. However, it issues tax deduction slips for donations, which implies its a charitable organization.And finally, it has significant business interests… It bothers me that the Church sometimes looks and acts more like a business-oriented corporation than any kind of truly benevolent organization that gives the impression of being honestly concerned with the well-being of its members, Christian fellowship, charity, etc. This “Corporation of the President” name will definitely make some people suspicious about what they are really trying to accomplish. However, I don’t really believe in the whole evil-corporation idea that some cynics have about the Church. Personally, I think this corporation and some of the investments are mostly just a side-effect of some of the mistrust of outsiders and the persecution complex about having lost property in the past due to negative reactions to polygamy, etc. and the same structure has simply survived to this day and grown along with the Church.
I can’t imagine the top Church leaders continuing to teach tithing the way they do mostly out of self-interest when some of them have so many family members that are basically in the same boat as other active members. It seems like it would be hard to keep any kind of deliberately deceptive money-making racket secret in a case like this when there are occasional dissenters like Steve Benson that would probably expose it at the first opportunity. That’s why I think Church leaders don’t really know any better with some of the things they do and in my opinion they are mostly just repeating and supporting the same traditions they have inherited in many cases.
I work for the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop. Just to muddy the waters a little bit. 
When I worked for CES in the 1980s my check was issued by the Corporation of the President. But sometime in the 1990s that changed.
observant wrote:I work for the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop. Just to muddy the waters a little bit.
When I worked for CES in the 1980s my check was issued by the Corporation of the President. But sometime in the 1990s that changed.
Please continue — I’m interested in your perspective of how the church deals with it’s employees and what an “insider” StayLDSers has to say about the “Corporation of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.”
DevilsAdvocate wrote:It bothers me that the Church sometimes looks and acts more like a business-oriented corporation than any kind of truly benevolent organization that gives the impression of being honestly concerned with the well-being of its members, Christian fellowship, charity, etc. This “Corporation of the President” name will definitely make some people suspicious about what they are really trying to accomplish. However, I don’t really believe in the whole evil-corporation idea that some cynics have about the Church. Personally, I think this corporation and some of the investments are mostly just a side-effect of some of the mistrust of outsiders and the persecution complex about having lost property in the past due to negative reactions to polygamy, etc. and the same structure has simply survived to this day and grown along with the Church.
While I’m friendly with the Church (believe it or not), this is part of what gets my goat about it. The way it requires me to sacrifice and act like temporal matters are of no concern, yet my experience is that it’s very tight-fisted when funds are to flow the other way. I have a list of 8 or 10 things I’ve run into as a rank and file member that shows it behaves like any other temporal organization.
I’ve tried to Stage 5 it, but justifying some of the corporate-like behaviors I’ve seen through various thinking exercises, but I always come up short. Cases in point:
1. I tried to get an appointment with LDS Social services to help alter my thinking and to do some cognitive based therapy at the suggestion of Euheremus here. They were too booked to take me.
2. I saw financials that are public for units in Canada. About 5-7% of gross donations actually went back to fund the Ward budgets.
3. As a priesthood leader, our Bishop would not fund letters to less actives that we didn’t have manpower to see. Nor would he fund four highly successful after-Church socials which cost about $100 each, and which provided tangible results, testimonies in meetings, and even attracted a couple members to our Ward as new move-ins when they saw the fellowship. I also learned that at the end of the year he would send a surplus back to the Stake!!!
4. When I did needs analysis, I would run into people earning next to nothing and the Bishop would insist they cut their cable, internet or cell phone, which was the only entertainment they had. Granted, it’s not a necessity, but the overall impact on their situation was not great. I always felt for them.
5. When there were fast offerring deficits in our Ward, they would always come to us actives who were already stretched and ask us to contribute to clear it off. Meanwhile other Wards in the stake were running surpluses.
6. Our social activities committee complained they didn’t have much in funds to do things they wanted. My HPGL budget was $50 for the year, down from $70 the year previously.
7. Overall, I wish more money came back to the Wards to improve our programs. We ran out of books in Gospel Essentials for investigators and they said they weren’t ordering anymore!!!
8. I went to LDS Social services for an adoption. The director had left on a mission presidency assignment for three years. Rather than install a replacement director (and presumably, save costs), they let the place be run as a satellite to another Social Services unit in another country, with the remote director acting as general manager/director until the former director returned.
Well, performance deteriorated, culminating into a very heart-wrenching story and heartless rejection at the very last step of the adoption process for myself and my wife — all done by snail mail letter from the director in another country. We were shattered. We wrote to the people above the director and got back what appeared to be form letters and carefully worded letters meant to avoid liability.
When the mission president returned to the directorship a year later, he reviewed our case, and apologized. By this time I had fallen into deep, semi-activity and my testimony was severely damaged, as this was not the first time I’d felt disadvantaged by tight-fistedness that seemed to put people last. While the apology was greatly appreciated, it was hollow at the time, especially since we never heard from the remote director. There were other couples, said the returning director, that were similarly disadvantaged. I never could get myself to submit to that adoption process again. There was too much dragged across it.
9. As a new convert of 1 year, I approached my Stake President about serving a mission and he and my Bishop told me to stay home and get married because the Stake had borrowed to send out other missionaries, and the new SP didn’t agree with it. Any donations to the missionary fund would go to clearing off debt. Through a series of miraculous events, I managed to get all the money together myself after two years of working several jobs and living in a member’s unheated, uncooled attic (in Canada) for free (they were very kind, I mean it). I left when I was 23 years old.
These members inspired me, but as a Church I thought the behavior was terrible — all these promises of miracles in the BoM, blessings, “every worthy young man should serve a mission”, all seemed to fall apart in the face of temporal concerns; there were no expressions of faith, inspirational encouragement for striving, just a flat “stay home, there is no money”. If it were not for the faith and help of some good members who saw me struggle for a year to no avail, I dont’ think I would have lasted beyond that first trial of my faith.
as MercynGrace would say [/rant]. Sorry. These are matters that are close to my heart, and they take significant mental discipline to keep them at bay and to keep me active.
I have tried to explain these behaviors away but I have a hard time with it. It’s part of what makes it so hard for me to tow the party line — I no longer believe the Church is an extension of God. To me, it’s a temporal organization more concerned about its own existence than the welfare of its members. If it were not for spiritual experiences in certain callings, and the fact my immediate family is all Mormon, I would not be active.
SD – these issues are as real and troublesome as any I have heard or experienced. We all have our personal Gethsemane I supposed. I don’t know what to say, only, I am amazed that some of us folk continue on, or even want to continue on. The “force” or the spirit, must be strong in you. Yes the spiritual experiences are the only thing that keeps me tryuing — that’s why I don’t tend to land in the “logic and reason” camp of truth discernment. Logic doesn’t work due to lack of evidence about the truth of religion in general. The spiritual experiences were so powerful I can’t with conscience totally separate myself from this organization., or teach glaringly divergent ideas to my kids, or even find a different Church. What I find hard is the following:
1. Members tell me all these experiences were “a test”. Therefore, the implication is that because I seem not to be able to fully overcome them, I have therefore fallen short of God’s expectations. The problem is, I find these experiences very hard to forget. Every week, lessons, policies, etcetera, flow through the lens of these experiences, and I am constantly fighting interpretations of these experiences that are colored by them. For example, when I hear about tithing settlement, I ask myself “Why is the ONLY commandment that warrants a sit-down accountability meeting once a year with a Church leader focused on money???”. The feelings I had sitting across from the Stake President, or the cost-reduction measures my last Bishop engaged in, or the reluctance with which welfare help was given, influence this thinking. I don’t need to debate that here, but the thought occurs to me when I reflect on the tight-fistedness I described above.
2. People rely on “The Church is perfect but the people aren’t” rejoinder to address these concerns. This for me is simply a license for this divine institution to act without accountability. I tend to look at the close-to-the vest handling of Church financials through this lens.
3. I have periods when I forget these experiences. I went fully TBM twice — once after the mission problem, and once after the adoption. But I seem to always return to fighting desires of less activity when I hit snags that remind me of the past experiences. Last time, I felt so used when I wasn’t released in a timely fashion and with sensitivity to the challenges I was facing juggling so many interests.
Anyway, honestly, if I didn’t have those moments when I kneeled at the side of my bed and experienced what I felt was direct communication from God that I should stay with this organization, I would have left long ago. Unforunately, it hasn’t been a happy stay for the last year or more…
The “test” answer is over-applied EVERY time it is used by someone to explain what someone else has experienced. If you want to view an experience as a test, great; if someone else says it was . . . nope, I don’t buy it. The Church isn’t perfect, and it never has been – not even the moment it was formed after Jesus’ death
Honestly, SD, even as I don’t like many of the examples you listed, I can understand almost all of them from an intellectual standpoint. Trying to view them charitably, I can’t “like” them – but I can empathize in most cases and not “condemn” them. Of course, as my first point in this comment implies, that’s MUCH easier for me to say being removed from the actual experience of them.
Intellectual analysis loses to real-life experience almost every time-and you and cwald still being active and wanting to stay active is proof of that, imo. Old-Timer wrote:Honestly, SD, even as I don’t like many of the examples you listed, I can understand almost all of them from an intellectual standpoint.
I’m glad that later in your post you eventually acknowledge that the disinterested lens of intellectualism provides a distorted view of things that are experienced first hand. Cwald knows more details about the adoption that I think would turn your head if you understood the reason I pursued it, as well as the reasons given for rejecting us initially.
Personally, I see no good reason for hoarding Ward budget funds so they can be sent back to the Stake at the end of the year; the Wards are the lifeblood of the Church, and the engine of financial donations. I see it as a positive step to invest in them to help make their programs good.
Funny, the Providing the Lord’s Way booklet/manual used to tell us to seek out the poor. However, it was clear in the meetings I was involved in that the real objective was to reduce fast-offering deficits, not to proactively seek out the poor.
Anyway, we can agree to disagree. I realize my view is tainted based on many of the experiences I’ve had so far in the Church. Much of what I’m going to do going forward is based on self-protectionism.
Wow. I’m not sure you missed much by not getting into LDS Social Services. Most of the counselor’s we know (in Utah) won’t work for them, because the LDS Agenda sits in front of best-practice and prevents them from doing their jobs.
Some of the issues, like not using other ward fast offering surpluses reflect local administration decisions. I know in our stake, at least back when I was involved, fast offerings and missionary funds flowed back and forth fairly freely among units.
I share the concern about lack of transparency.
I use mass transit in the Utah area, and have listened to church employees telling of horror stories of mismanagement withing the Church Office Building. I know that is anecdotal sour grapes, but I do think we have an organization that is NEVER accountable to its members and it concerns me. I know of know other situation like that.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.