Financial Whistleblower

[Just_A_Guy]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

The irony.

Is “lude” short for “quaaludes”, Bill Cosby’s date-rape drug of choice?

[mrmarket]

1 hour ago, NeedleinA said:

Here it is spelled out:

We identify one another, on this forum, by the fruits we individually produce. Some are here with the sole purpose to uplift. Others, here to learn. Yet others delight in poking fun at the Church at any opportunity. They delight in pulling talking points from ex-mormon twitter feeds or reddit posts. They tout the 'feelings' and 'ideas' of disenfranchised members as factual proof of what the Church did or won't do in the future. They no longer doubt their doubts, but rather relish in sprinkling the seeds of doubt upon others under the guise of being a faithful concerned member.

They choose to no longer have eyes that see or ears that hear the still small that would otherwise offer course correction.

Purveyor of grapes & figs... or delighter in thorns & thistles?

Public repeated grievances against the Church tell a story, typically that an individual is bitter with an ax to grind. 
Hopefully that was 'spelled out' enough.

 

 

Do you mind posting each of my quotes in full context please? Those snips may not accurately portray what I actually said.

[NeedleinA]

4 minutes ago, mrmarket said:

Do you mind posting each of my quotes in full context please? Those snips may not accurately portray what I actually said.

The picture portrayed by your repeated tone is clear enough and it only took less than 50 posts to accomplish.
You are oh too eager to toss thorns, and wield a brush of doubt & dissent.

 

[mrmarket]

58 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

The picture portrayed by your repeated tone is clear enough and it only took less than 50 posts to accomplish.
You are oh too eager to toss thorns, and wield a brush of doubt & dissent.

 

 

Ok thank you

[mrmarket]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Is “lude” short for “quaaludes”, Bill Cosby’s date-rape drug of choice?

I just looked it up- yea that’s what he used 

[JohnsonJones]

It is possible that both ideas are correct.  That the Church will eventually not only sustain itself, but tithing will no longer be required...while at the same time the Law of Tithing is continued...but in a different manner.

In fact, it could be even MORE extreme than what we see today in regards to tithing.  The Greater Law is actually the Law of Consecration, and once that has been instituted, there is no need to pay tithing (of course, a LOT MORE than 10% is going to be donated to the Church at that point).

If at some point, the Church gathers all the Saints in under the umbrella of Consecration, then the Church itself will need to sustain itself, but it will also be sustaining the members.  In likewise, the members would be donating all their time and talents (and income, increase, and all they make) to the church.

I think some say that the Members will live under the Law of Consecration during the Millennium (sorry, I don't have a quote on that offhand, I'm not my normal scholarly self right now), and at that time I imagine the Church will be self sustaining.

Right now though, the Church (in my viewpoint) is working to the point that it is self-sustaining.  This would mean that they would not have to rely on other income to sustain it's worldly financial obligations and other activities.  That does not necessarily mean that the Law of Consecration would come into effect for all of us to live under at that time, or that the Law of Tithing would at that point be no longer necessary.  What happens would be up to the Church Leaders and the Prophets.

The wording of Joseph F. Smith could be read in various ways and manners.  IRONICALLY, he probably did NOT mean tithing would be paid as we pay it now.  That method actually came a little after his time.  Of course, as a prophet, perhaps that's exactly what he meant (as perhaps he knew future events and how things would be done, but I do not know), but it probably wasn't interpreted by members in that manner at that time.  It could have meant that tithing would continue to be paid as it was during his time, or as some journals indicate, that it would go back to the manner that it was paid Prior to his and Lorenzo Snow's time.

In that case, it would be FAR more voluntary in some ways than it is today.  On the otherhand, it would be a FAR GREATER indicator of those willing to follow the teachings on it vs. those who did not.

Or, he could have meant that it would mean that there would no longer be any tithing required.  I think it could be read in many different ways. 

Regardless, whatever it meant or was understood by members back then, what matters now is what our modern prophets and leaders say on the matter as well as what modern events indicate.

Modern Leaders currently have us paying tithing, which is meant 10% of our increase annually, increase meaning income.

The Church teaches us to have a rainy day storage for us.  This can be funds set aside for when we have financial difficulties.  it can also be food storage and other necessities.

It should be no surprise to anyone that the Church also has a 'rainy' day savings for itself for when they also may have difficulties pertaining to the world.  It is a matter that they also do as they teach it's members to do.  These funds, just like any other tithing fund is to sustain the church in whatever manner the Leaders of the Church feel is best.  For now, it is probably still going to be in savings as what I see as a true rainy day for the Church has not yet arrived (though how far off that day may be, I do not know).

I think one of the goals of that fund is for the Church to be able to sustain itself without any other income, measures, or means, if such items are cut off or gone.  They are not there yet, but I think the goal is to reach that point someday.  I do not know what or if that will even cause any changes otherwise to the Church when they reach that goal. 

HOWEVER, in my opinion the Book of Mormon is not only about the story of the natives of the American Continent, and more than just a history, it has a type and shadow of the last days and the millennium within it.  If that type and shadow is to be believed, there will be a great many that will fall away before the second coming.  Planning for that rainy day by saving now I feel is akin to the same as Joseph's story of seven years of plenty and seven years of famine (something that Brigham Young alluded to at times, but which we still have not had occur...I think it is still coming and he actually DID see it...just not as soon as the Pioneer Saints felt it was going to arrive at).

In that time it could be that there will not be enough income to support the Church in it's current operations of doing things.  Having a rainy day fund it can fall back on to continue it's missions on Earth would be important at that time.

I don't think it's here yet, but I think it may be coming.  Preparations for it is probably a good thing for the Church to do.

Edited March 24, 2020 by JohnsonJones

[NeedleinA]

On 3/21/2020 at 9:12 PM, NeedleinA said:

As members face potential unemployment, loss of income, mounting bills, etc. many will inevitably approach the Church for assistance. This spike is already occurring.
As this continues to occur... good thing the Church was prepared for a rainy day. Now they have the ability to help others during their rainy day.

I received a PM here this morning, from an admirer (wink), suggesting that I might be (while inadvertently) spreading Anti-Mormon talking points with the above sentiment. So... along those lines, please allow me to further clarify:

1. The Church has their financial reserves.
2. Some individuals will face hard times.
3. Those individuals will approach the Church for assistance.
4. The Church is prepared for rainy days via their financial reserves. Reserves that, among other things, can continue to pay the salaries of Church employees, say for example full time beef ranchers and citrus growers.

Quote

Church Reserves
Some investments serve a dual purpose. For example, Church President Gordon B. Hinckley stated that “we have felt that good farms, over a long period, represent a safe investment where the assets of the Church may be preserved and enhanced, while at the same time they are available as an agricultural resource to feed people should there come a time of need”

5. Now they (the Church) can "continue" to have the ability to help others during their rainy day.

The church has the ability to maintain: electricity in their canneries, gas to their trucks, wages for employees that produce/bring resources to those in need.
As individuals face mounting bills; fast offerings, bishop's storehouse, etc. remain the avenue to seek relief.

"Now they (the Church) have the ability to help others during their rainy day" VS. "Now they (the Church) will use their financial reserves to start paying everyone's bills during this rainy day".
Two different thoughts, the latter is not what I wrote nor my intended sentiment.

Thanks morning PM.

Edited March 24, 2020 by NeedleinA

[estradling75]

11 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

"Now they (the Church) have the ability to help others during their rainy day" VS. "Now they (the Church) will use their financial reserves to start paying everyone's bills during this rainy day".

Two different thoughts, the latter is not what I wrote nor my intended sentiment.

Thanks morning PM.

Or in otherwords... the Church practices what it preaches and does not need someone to Bail it out in times of trial and hardship.

 

 

[anatess2]

22 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

4. The Church is prepared for rainy days via their financial reserves. Reserves that, among other things, can continue to pay the salaries of Church employees, say for example full time beef ranchers and citrus growers.

Or get hotel rooms and charter jumbo jets to move a massive number of missionaries to their home countries in the middle of a pandemic.  $25B travel expense is what I heard over the grapevine.

[mrmarket]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Or get hotel rooms and charter jumbo jets to move a massive number of missionaries to their home countries in the middle of a pandemic.  $25B travel expense is what I heard over the grapevine.

For 65k missionaries that’s like  ~$384k per head. Good thing this was planned for that is pretty pricey.

[anatess2]

5 minutes ago, mrmarket said:

For 65k missionaries that’s like  ~$384k per head. Good thing this was planned for that is pretty pricey.

My son stayed at a Five Star Hotel near the airport in Manila... it's the grandest hotel he's ever been at his entire American life complete with dining service.

[JohnsonJones]

On ‎3‎/‎24‎/‎2020 at 9:04 AM, anatess2 said:

Or get hotel rooms and charter jumbo jets to move a massive number of missionaries to their home countries in the middle of a pandemic.  $25B travel expense is what I heard over the grapevine.

WOW, that is a staggering price...

But, there is probably more to the story than just the flight and accommodations.  Diplomacy can actually cost more money at times than people may think, and negotiating a way to get missionaries out of nations that have closed themselves off or have it very hard to get beyond the borders (in or out) can be a costly endeavor.

[mrmarket]

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

WOW, that is a staggering price...

But, there is probably more to the story than just the flight and accommodations.  Diplomacy can actually cost more money at times than people may think, and negotiating a way to get missionaries out of nations that have closed themselves off or have it very hard to get beyond the borders (in or out) can be a costly endeavor.

I dont know if the $25Bn figure is accurate. Seems as if the only place I have seen/head that is antaness' post. I would be surprised if the church had to pay that much in bribes or even flight charters to get people back. It sounds more in-line with the figure the church lost in the stock market in the last few weeks with what we know about the $100Bn + portfolio. 

Chartering a jet costs tons of money, but I did it a few times for work (737) which was one way from east coast to west and that was $185K. Overseas??? Im sure it would be a lot more.   $25Bn? Doubt it.

[anatess2]

16 minutes ago, mrmarket said:

I dont know if the $25Bn figure is accurate. Seems as if the only place I have seen/head that is antaness' post. I would be surprised if the church had to pay that much in bribes or even flight charters to get people back. It sounds more in-line with the figure the church lost in the stock market in the last few weeks with what we know about the $100Bn + portfolio. 

Chartering a jet costs tons of money, but I did it a few times for work (737) which was one way from east coast to west and that was $185K. Overseas??? Im sure it would be a lot more.   $25Bn? Doubt it.

I estimate that just for the flights out of the Mission Area province in the Philippines to each missionary's home airport would cost the Church $10M.  Then there's the 6 days they stayed in a hotel in the Philippines for 1600+ missionaries.  Then there's food.  Then there's the flight to their reassignments.

Then you multiply that by how many countries we have missionaries that have to go home.

Then there's all the senior missionaries and health compromised people and those who have served 18 months (elders) or 15 months (sisters) that had to fly out right now instead of at the end of their missions.

These things add up.

The $25b number was a figure talked about on social media.  You know what they say about information you get out of social media....

 

[Just_A_Guy]

I’m with Mr. Market on this one.  I can see the Church spending tens of millions of dollars bringing the missionaries home; but they ain’t spending no three-hundred-thousand dollars per head.

[anatess2]

29 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I’m with Mr. Market on this one.  I can see the Church spending tens of millions of dollars bringing the missionaries home; but they ain’t spending no three-hundred-thousand dollars per head.

I would love to know exactly how much this cost the Church.  I don't know if they release the budget to this detail but it would be an interesting thing.  Maybe they'll have a line-item on the next budget report... CoVID expense:

 

[mrmarket]

8 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I would love to know exactly how much this cost the Church.  I don't know if they release the budget to this detail but it would be an interesting thing.  Maybe they'll have a line-item on the next budget report... CoVID expense:

 

There will very likely not be any financial disclosure. 

[JohnsonJones]

Perhaps it was closer to 25 million and someone added a few zeroes on social media??

[NeuroTypical]

I know a guy who was on a business trip from the US to Europe.  He had some sort of serious medical complication, and was emergency life-flighted back to the US for treatment.  It cost $100k.

[mrmarket]

29 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I know a guy who was on a business trip from the US to Europe.  He had some sort of serious medical complication, and was emergency life-flighted back to the US for treatment.  It cost $100k.

Not a suprise...the flight itself was prob the cheap part. That is just an overpriced ambulance.

Edited March 25, 2020 by mrmarket