Leaderboard

The Church seems to have accomplished what it did fiscally, by saving roughly 15% of its income each year. Saving 15% is classic financial planning advice, but only a tiny proportion of Americans actually do it. This lends both a jealousy angle and a political angle to the story. First, because there’s something very humiliating about getting into midlife and realizing that if you’d just done what Grandma told you to do all along, you’d now be as prosperous as your cousin who took Grandma’s advice more seriously than you did. And second, because a lot of folks (primarily on the left) have made a living peddling the narrative that our society is so broken that ordinary people and groups can no longer attain prosperity through hard work and careful planning; and the Church is living proof to the contrary.

If we are being transparent lets be honest... Most people complaints about how other people save or spend money is because they did not have a say in how it is done and for whatever reason they feel entitled to it. This goes all the way back to Judas. When Christ was anointed with a pricey ointment, Judas complained that the ointment was not sold and the money given to the poor instead

A couple of observations: —I think people who actually pay tithing generally understand that tithing (as opposed to fast offerings or funds specified to humanitarian aid) go primarily to Church operating expenses, and only secondarily (if at all) to humanitarian aid. —There’s kind of an assumption in a lot of these sorts of discussions they “charity” must be one and the same thing as “humanitarian aid”. When you think about it, though—the DNC and RNC are tax-exempt charities but do relatively little in way of what we would consider “humanitarian aid”. Ditto for many political think tanks and action committees, and entities like Planned Parenthood and environmental advocacy groups and educational institutions. There’s nothing wrong with using Church funds to keep the lights on in a meetinghouse, or building that meetinghouse in the first place—particularly when we’re building it on behalf of impoverished third-world Saints who could never do something like that on their own. —I’ve *had* my temple recommend revoked. The day-to-day social fallout from this was . . . zero. (Granted, it would have been more awkward had there been any family members getting sealed during the periods in question. But the subtext we often see from critics suggesting that the Church is fundamentally and visibly cleft into an upper caste that has been arbitrarily granted temple recommends and a lower caste that has been arbitrarily denied them, is nonsense.) And the theological and familial adverse effects were essentially zero since I undeniably already wasn’t living the covenants that kept me temple-worthy. —To anyone who actually believes the Church doctrine and takes their temple covenants seriously, “tithing” isn’t manipulative. It’s a scriptural precept affiliated with the Law of Consecration, the keeping of which is a temple obligation and which actually shapes our characters and makes better people (not to mention being an essential component of many of the minor miracles Latter-day Saints purport to see in their lives). Now, yes; all that could theoretically happen if I gave my tithing to some other entity. But if I take the sort of step that affirmatively signals that I don’t trust the Church leadership’s financial judgment vis a vis my tithing, then that does have spillover effects for how well I trust them in their larger roles of building Zion (both spiritually and, when the time comes, temporally). And a society that doesn’t operate on a basic level of trust—especially towards its leadership—cannot and will not become a Zion community. Ever. Granted, the trust goes both ways; and I can imagine plenty of situations where church leaders may be abusing that trust. But to suggest that the universe of potentially abusive situations includes the real-life scenario in which the Church had the callousness to turn my widow’s mite into 3.75 widow’s mites which they haven’t happened to spend yet . . . strikes me as something of a stretch.

If everyone was being transparent let's get to the real issue at hand: 1) If the Church supported and funded everything pertaining to SSM and homosexual behavior this would not have been gone as public. It would have simply been an investigation. 2) If the Church removed the WoW allowing all members now to openly choose their beverage while still attending the temple, this would have simply been an investigation. 3) If the natural man wasn't an enemy to God, this would have simply been an investigation. 4) If the Church leaders would simply change God's laws (which are unchangeable) the Church wouldn't be facing such scrutiny. 5) We can expect this type of scrutiny and enmity to increase until they can find something to stick. Oh my heavens, if they think $100B is a lot of money, just wait for the Law of Consecration and the United Order to be once again commanded. I would think the Church is probably doing what Christ has already said, "Give unto Ceaser what is Ceasars." (paraphrazed) I would also bet, wait for it.... there are probably mistakes made -- its called human fallacy/error. I have never met a perfect person, and I wasn't alive when the only perfect person died that all might be saved. I mean look at how the Church seeks to be organized at the ward level and how many members don't read, don't care, or simply disregard the Handbook because they are smarter and wiser -- they know what's best. The same in business. The Church teaches and expects us to follow the laws. As any other organization they will follow them and some of their hired employees might even get pretty close or even cross a borderline. People who have issues with the Church leaders, the Church, will continue to seek to hurt the Church. Nothing new. They have been doing this since the restoration of the Church in 1830. They will continue to do. And I bet, if the Church looses its tax exempt status we will once again hear from the natural man, "Thus ends Mormonism," and 50 years later the Church will still be thriving. I do feel sorry for Brother Nielsen, yet I do hope he was sincere at the same time. The chances are he will hopefully in this life recognize his error, if not, well...thanks goodness we have a just God.

I get it but do not agree. Yes, we justify our actions, and rationalize/moralize our selfish decisions. Mao saw 50 million starve and believed the sacrifice was worth it to create a new socialist man. Yet, if we are truly made in the image of God, then something in him knew it was wrong. So, while we can all make our case, before God, come judgment day, there will be no objections to righteous judgments rendered.

Ah yes you only show up when you think you have a got ya question. Totally not worth the time to play your games

It's funny. I was invited to speak to the seminary class this morning where we talked about testimony and faith. I was then sent a link to this from an atheist friend of mine that really dislikes that I've joined the Church. https://www.sltrib.com/news/2019/12/17/whistleblower-claims-that/ Why do so many people which aren't affected AT ALL by this so upset by it? I think it's funny that the spokesman just referred them to the website.

The Previews were exciting! Top Gun Maverick was Whoa... I actually got chills running down my spine it was that good. Of course I loved the original because... well, Val Kilmer. I didn't see him in the preview of the sequel so I think he's not in this movie but I still can't wait for this movie to show! Wonder Woman 1984 was Whoa... the WW fast-stop-slow-mo action was, like what has become a WW signature, spot on. Still not sure about Steve coming back from the dead because it's just waaay too overused such that we have started to feel like they're all living in a video game world with unlimited life. But I love the WW-Steve pair up so let's see what they make of it... There was one other preview that made me go... oooh... but I can't remember what it was. Not 1917 - I've seen that preview several times before. Not Jungle Cruise - I've also seen that before and another Theme Parky movie just doesn't excite me even if it has the Rock on it. Not that stupid preview titled Barbara and Stars that was too gimmicky I'm sure the movie is going to flop. I'll post it in this thread if I remember it.

I am not a fan of Trump. I do not believe if Trump is impeached, it is the end of our republic democracy – I think I could endure it. But there is much more that concerns me about all this. If I wanted to conquer this nation and people and control this Country’s economy – what would I do? The best way to conquer is to first divide. If I was a foreign power – influencing an election would not be an important goal. The most important influence would be to fuel a political division. If there was influence in an election – it would have as the primary goal to divide the voters and create any possible faith (support) in those elected. If any foreign government(s) are attempting to influence anything in this country – it is succeeding in dividing the country and convincing the citizens that nothing in the government (elected or bureaucratic) can be trusted. I wonder - if our country is facing the greatest crisis of it short history? Even greater than any war fought? The question is not so much who is right or who is wrong - the question is - How will we unite such divided political agendas. The Traveler

https://affirmation.org/gay-mens-chorus-washington-performs-dc-temple-visitors-center?fbclid=IwAR2PR3t-wSf4BunyG4XKg28zG0l7b3Ibmsux927sOFSRVy2bIUAkFZAkQhE

16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil (Book of Mormon | Moroni 7:16) I suspect that the tendency that @MormonGator so accurately describes is just our attempts to smother and silence that persistent whispering that what we are doing is wrong.

I really do hate the narrative/assumption that many display that if you have more then X amount of dollars saved or you make more then X amount of money. (With X clearly being an amount more than them). That you must have done something illegal/immoral so others are morally and legal entitled to take your stuff away

I assume it was a bright supernova that lit up the sky while it was night in the western hemisphere. As day approached here and night began in the East the light finally began to lessen and by the time night had fallen in Jerusalem it was just a really bright star. Always remember night here, day there.

Haven’t seen it yet, but I’m sure it will yet again be the best Starwars movie ever released just like every movie since the beginning of the prequels.

^^^This. These are two opposing sides that, in reality, can't actually exist together. You are either a faithful and true latter-day saint OR You are declaring/speculating that all the leadership is corrupt/negligent ...but you are not both at the same time.

The whole purpose of the church's existence, the primary focus of all of its efforts, is the salvation of every single one of God's children that ever have been, that are now, and that ever will be. This, to me, is a far greater, nobler and more expensive goal than the goals all other charities combined.

For the two other people in the world who might care, there are copious RWBY things appearing in the background of the movie Doctor Sleep. (I'm guessing there are maybe two other people in the world who like RWBY and Stephen King's The Shining. I doubt any of them are on this board, but whatever.) In other news, Doctor Sleep is a tenderhearted show about bringing closure to a traumatic childhood, breaking a multi-generational cycle of alcoholism, and becoming a better person in order to benefit the next generation. Just disguised as a horror movie that will give you nightmares.

Opaqueness to who? You? A Random John Doe off the street? That is not how most of any business are run. The books are closed and the finances are hidden from people who do not need to know. Now there are legal requirement of disclosure that need to be met, and auditing and financial best practices for checking for errors and fraud that need to be perform. Which require the opening of the books and transparency to certain groups. This should all be happening, but random street person is not going to see that

Again, I don't understand. Either the Restored Church is what it claims to be, or else it is not. This is truly a binary choice. There is no middle ground. An organization cannot sort of be the kingdom of God on earth. It is or it is not. If the Restored Church is not what it claims to be, then quit giving tithing. So what if you can't go to the temple? it's all nonsense. If the Restored Church is what it claims to be, then "your" tithing is nothing of the sort. It's not yours. It's God's. You have exactly zero say in how those funds are used. Whether or not you approve of how the tithing expenditures committee does its job is utterly irrelevant. And even in the latter case, you still have the choice as to whether or not you tithe. You aren't forced. As far as I can see, the "priestcraft" argument is irrelevant in either case. As long as the Church follows tax law and does not forcibly compel people to give it money. what's to object to, at least on a legal level? In every General Conference that I remember, the Church has always provided testimony from independent accounting services that the tithes and other Church income has been used appropriately. I would think that requiring a more "line-item" accounting than this sort of belies the idea of trusting in one's leaders. Which, of course, one is free to do, but that does run counter to the whole idea of "God's kingdom".

I suppose we simply will have to disagree on this one. I don't think the powers of one being have any bearing on the powers of another being; they are not mutually exclusive. Based on what you are saying it would mean that powers can be created that did not previously exist. If I were the first creation and God granted me the power to choose, according to your logic, my ability to choose is a power that did not previously exist and, now that it is given, God is no longer 'all powerful'. The problem with this is that all powers, principles, elements, etc, have existed for all eternity without beginning and end. Hence it is not 'my ability to choose' but 'the ability to choose'. Looking at 'powers' in this way it could be said that God did not create for me the ability to choose, but instead enabled me to have and use this ability. As I mentioned before, I think a lot of this is paradigm related. When considering things from my paradigm, God is capable of acting in use of every power that exists; that is not to say that He would do so in all cases, but instead, simply that he is capable. My ability to choose and your ability to choose are not separate powers, instead, they are two people with access to the same power. What is a separate power would be your and/or my ability to influence what one another will choose. Even then, choice and influence is a total of two powers that two separate individuals possess, not four total powers. Anyway, that's how I see it.

Back out of deals, jerk them around and/or skyrocket the cost of the land too. Kind of reminds me of how Disney originally went about buying the land for Disney World.

You think YOU hate those brutal murders? You just heard about it. Our Savior directly felt every single blow, every single tear from every single person involved: the victims, their friends, their families, and even the perpetrators. Pardon my bluntness, but compared to Him, you understand nothing and your hatred of those crimes is nothing compared to His. You also don’t truly love any of the people involved- to your they’re just names. But He knows and loves each of them more deeply then you could ever understand. Yes, even the perpetrators. He wants so badly for each of us to turn away from horrible deeds—horrible things that cause more pain that we mortals could ever understand. He wants to wash each of us clean. Urges it with every fiber of His being. But He will not force anyone to walk in His goodness and happiness. And to those that refuse, His wrath is beyond our ability to fathom.

This seems odd to me. We’ve long known that the Church saves and invests a portion of its income. The $32 billion Ensign Peak received in tithing is still there, amongst the $120 billion total. (And it’s not like the money just sitting in a vault waiting for Russ Nelson to invite his buddy Scrooge McDuck to go swim in it. It’s invested out in the economy, funding growth and paying salaries.) If the Church is able to turn every one of my tithing dollars into $3.75, which it still has and can use to further its theological aims (which I know intimately) whenever it deems the time is right, then my only regret is that I haven’t given the Church more.

Prove it. I am one that pays into this charity. I do so with the expectation that they will practice what they preach. That includes helping the poor and needy it also includes running itself and being able to meet future needs and be prepared for unexpected. I also expect them to do so while obeying the law while maximizing the return. I am not a business guy, and I not finance guy, nor am I a tax guy. But the people running the accounts in question are and a few here are and many in the various linked articles are. And they do not think the sum of money is excessive. Nothing in any article shows that they broke any laws. There is an accusation, and various analysis that runs from unlikely to not enough data. Yet you take the stance that it happened. Prove all the articles wrong right now if you truly know that. If the church purposely broke the law then it should absolutely face the consequences. If there was simple human error it should pay for that too. If the church actions were legal and it took advantage of the gray areas and loop holes that everyone does then it should have no consequences for that. One does not get to change the rules of the game after the play is made just so you can penalize the team you do not like. Now you might want to say will this potentially fully legal action should not be legal. Well that is your right, but that is an act of congress to change the law. Not the act of a of a whistle blower investigation.

What's wrong with $100 billion? What makes that number "too big"? I'm not sure I understand the evil in "hoarding" money. Saving is no longer allowed? Why? As long as no laws are being broken, why should any individual or private organization be forced or even expected to give a public accounting for their expenditures? So because people like you don't like it, therefore that means it's bad?

Please provide a link to your Church source material so I can read where they state that they have "no clear charitable purpose" for said reserves. Why is $100B offensive yet some mystery number <$100B is not? "The Church is (insert negative rant) they have too much money saved." "The Church is (insert negative rant) they have too little money saved." Wise stewards of financial resources OR uninspired lousy financial planners... individuals are going to protest either way. Perhaps the need for approval by those with public distrust is ultimately of little to no concern. Perhaps said organization realizes that no matter what they do, dissenters stand at the ready to do what they ultimately grave, you know, 'dissent'.

Should the government be OK with it... YES. Should an individual... that depend on the individual. If they are then fine... if not then they stop donating... and if they feel they were deceived or fraud was involved that is something they can have the government investigate.

If they are sincerely planning to use it for a charitable purpose at some future date, then sure. Heck, Harvard has been described as “a $40 billion trust fund with a university attached”. And Harvard never revitalized an ailing city center, or bailed out a near-bankrupt insurance company with 1,200 people on its payrolls in the midst of a near-catastrophic global recession. If a federal, state, or municipal government had done what the Church actually did vis a vis City Creek or Beneficial Life, it would be lauded as an example of a government successfully acting towards progressive ends, saving jobs and combating poverty. But because a private, tax-exempt, religious entity did the very same thing; all of a sudden it’s some sort of boondoggle and abuse of the public trust?

From the Church auditing department report of the April 2018 General Conference "The Church follows the practices taught to its members of living within a budget, avoiding debt, and saving against a time of need." Obviously, if the church is consistently living within its budget and avoiding debt, then a surplus will unavoidably accumulate.

The letter is titled “A Letter to an IRS Director”... sounds like it is trying to be the sequel to “A letter to a CES Director”

The fact that the Church is wise enough to keep financial reserves shouldn't be a shock to faithful members of the church, as we are told to do the same in our own lives. From 2018 - Church Finances and a Growing Global Faith

Church's Official Statement - First Presidency Statement on Church Finances

I'm sick and tired of it and I'm not even British!!! If people feel similar to that, they just want for it to finally be resolved rather than dragging it out for longer and longer periods.

Heaven forbid an organization has a rainy day fund, combined with investments in the future. I personally believe there will be a time when certain countries become open to the gospel, and we will have a massive influx of new members, and the infrastructure to maintain such an influx would be colossal. Not really sure who said the money was being saved for the second coming, but they are right, if not totally distorting the reasoning (but what else is new?).

I do find this "scandal" a bit over stated. The church takes in 7B, and spends 6B, and has 100B in savings. Now, let's put that into household expenses. Say I make 70K a year and my expenses are 60K, and I have 1 million in a 401K. Sounds about right for a 100+ year old institution. In fact, I would call it slim.

Doctor Nelson didn't make enough money from his time as a world-renowned heart surgeon, you see. So now he has a sweet gig where, at 95 years old, he spends 80 hours per week traveling around from meetinghouse to meetinghouse helping people, and for this life of luxury he receives the exorbitant sum of around $120,000 per year. If only he could have made that kind of coin during his surgery days! Maybe he could have afforded to retire instead of working hard into his tenth decade.

I want to point out one distinction here that the article and most people don't understand. The church has two distinct streams of donations. Tithes and offerings. Tithes are used for operating expenses. Offerings are spent on welfare and humanitarian aid, which is why you never see a high number in the Tithes column. And likely that 4% you mention is probably due to infrastructure costs, and not straight donations. No, that's where your fast offerings, missionary funds, Deseret Industry, etc all comes from. Most of those funds are handled locally, and never even reach the central church, but are redistributed through the bishop at his discretion. This is not part of the billions in the article. And virtually every penny goes to charity, since we know bishops are unpaid, and many of the labor in making and distributing food is done by volunteers. So, don't make the mistake of thinking the church is stingy on humanitarian efforts. They are simply not reporting that... and I believe are doing so deceptively.

A few thoughts. I find it funny the people who want to take your money and spend it "the right way" or the way they want are also the ones who have racked up trillions in debt. Heaven forbid an organization have a surplus. I also found it interesting that in the article on WaPo, it mentioned that there is a "finders fee" for those who report tax fraud. Seems like this guy has a chip in his shoulder, and is also trying to cash in.

It's always funny to me when people think we will be shocked when we find out how much money the church has. 1. I'm glad the church has a large stockpile of money. It means they are managing the funds they receive well and that there is plenty of money to help the work of God continue. 2. Why would the church's wealth affect my desire to pay tithing? I, and all faithful members, pay tithing to follow God's commandments. Nothing else matters in that regard. This article just shows that those without faith really don't understand what they criticize.

I think that's what burns them the most.

“Would you pay tithing instead of water, electricity, or feeding your family if you knew that it would sit around by the billions until the Second Coming of Christ?” Yes sir, yes we would.

I'm not sure Rush makes up for Justin Bieber and we haven't even mentioned Celine Dion yet.

I knew you were a closet commie. Time to refurbish the compound's re-education chamber - it's woefully out of date.

You need to apologize for giving us Justin Bieber.

The dig itself is weaksauce, but waiting 2 years to post the response -- now that's rubbing it in!

So if my math is right, you’re saying the Church should be carrying a debt of at least $670 billion in order to be as well-run as the federal government is.