Sam Brunson did a great overview at BCC of the most recent breaking “scandal,” that a whistleblower who was working for the Church revealed that EPA (Ensign Peak Advisers) has mostly static investments equaling $100 billion that were produced by investing a portion of the members’ tithing funds. This pool of funds is tax exempt, or probably is tax exempt (Sam points out the gray areas this type of investment live in, similar to a university endowment). Sam asks three questions: is it true (the $100B), should the Church have this much moolah at its disposal, and does it violate tax law. I’d prefer to focus today’s post on that middle category: should a Church have this much money?
I suspect this is a question that is bothering some of those who are inclined to resent the way the Church handles tithing. It’s also a sticking point for those who feel the Church isn’t sufficiently charitable with the means at its disposal. Sam points out, rightly, that this is a fairly new problem for the Church, given that the Church had serious solvency problems in the 70s, and ward members (in addition to tithing) were asked to contribute to the Ward Budget directly.
So, let’s talk about tithing to an organization with a behemoth fund in its back pocket. Some of the issues are:
- Regressive tax / church welfare requirements
- Tithing settlement / bishop oversight
- Temple recommend / pay to play
- Transparency / member engagement
- Loyalty / trust
Regressive Tax
According to the D&C, we are supposed to pay tithing on our “increase” (because it was written for farmers) which sounds like it shouldn’t include the money you use to pay for your housing and groceries (or crops you consume). The practice of paying on either net or (worse) gross income creates a seriously problematic regressive tax. It’s the same problem as any flat tax. It sounds “fair,” until you consider the vastly different circumstances and resources of the poor vs. the wealthy.
People who live paycheck to paycheck could need 95% of their net income to live, but also need to pay 10% of it to the church. Those who are middle class might need only 70% of their income to pay for basics, so even after tithing, they have 20% to save, invest, or use to pay for their kids’ college. That’s a regressive tax.
Then add to that the plight of the poor who seek church welfare. They are instructed that to qualify for short-term, limited assistance, they must be full tithe payers, and they must have a plan to become self-reliant. It makes the task much harder to have two potentially incompatible constraints.
Tithing settlement
Some church members find the process of annual bishop oversight to be nosy and intrusive. This can vary greatly from bishop to bishop. The process is designed to be an annual interview between the member and the bishop in which the member declares his or her tithing payer status as full, partial or non-payer. Sounds simple enough.
While these interviews are voluntary (trust me, if you don’t go, what are they going to do?), there are some objections to various ways bishops have handled the scheduling, how contributions are tracked in families with spouses that handle finances separately or part member families, badgering by a bishop who disbelieves the member’s self reported status, sexist “head of household” designations, and occasional strong-arm tactics if a bishop believes the member is paying less than he thinks that person should.
Temple Recommends
Maybe this is an offshoot of the less solvent 1970s, but having a temple recommend (which also means you are a full tithe payer) is a requirement for full participation on your local congregation. If you want to bless a baby, hold a calling, and generally be considered “in good standing,” you must pay up. It used to be a much more common thing for adults to allow their recommend to lapse due to non payment of tithing, then to have a family wedding requiring some last minute corrections (coughing up whatever the local bishop deemed necessary to demonstrate reformation). Jaded ex-Mormons refer to this as “pay to play,” and honestly, that’s what it has become since an active Temple Recommend became shorthand for worthy member.
Transparency
This is probably the biggest sticking point for many–the idea that Church members put money in, but don’t know what happens with it. That the Church could go from such questionable financial status to something so grand in a few short decades is both impressive and a little alarming. Joseph Smith’s track record with money was such that I wouldn’t have entrusted him with a huge investment portfolio. We’ve come a long way since Kirtland. Sam’s article suggests that as a new problem, it is something the Church must be grappling with: how to operate with so much money available. How much should be given to charities, which ones, through what distribution channels. Will the Church grapple with it well or will it become more and more corporate? The charitable giving is a drop in the bucket compared to the available funds, but perhaps that will correct itself with the right planning. Two incidents of these funds being used to bail out poor Church investments were cited in the article. If that’s what this money is for, it seems of questionable benefit for those of us who paid the tithing that was invested in this way.
E. Causse stated that having these funds available is good preparation for the second coming, without really specifying how they would be of benefit in such a situation. Is money still needed after Jesus comes again or is that a capitalist fear that will be rendered moot? What financial needs would emerge in that situation that are more pressing than the plight of the homeless or lifting our fellow humans out of poverty through education and health care?
Lack of information about how funds are spent can lead to less engagement in a good cause, even if members don’t mind paying into a black hole. Our current system leads to detachment from these funds, not engagement with good causes.
Loyalty / Trust
Church members who feel a high degree of loyalty to the institutional Church will see this story as a positive one: evidence of good financial stewardship and learning from past mistakes (which is certainly a valid interpretation if these numbers are correct). They likely also view tithing as something out of their hands, in the hands of those who know better, and who are worthy of their trust as good men with inspired plans to invest for tomorrow, and to do the good they can today without jeopardizing the future. The very amount could be seen as a mark of God’s favor.
For those who already feel resentful of the Church for various reasons, the lack of trust in past actions creates skepticism about how the funds are being used and whether the Church is being responsible in requiring this level of sacrifice, even from the poor among us. Will these funds be used for political aims that some of us don’t support, that hurt members of our family or congregation who are vulnerable or marginalized? Is the Church benefiting from poorly written legislation, navigating loopholes rather than evaluating the ethics of the tax laws?
For those who sit somewhere between the extremes of cynicism and fealty, trust is fostered based on personal experience and one’s own priorities and values.
So what do you think?
- Do you trust the Church to be a good steward of this much money?
- Do you feel our tithing policies and practices are administered well as they are or would you make changes to them?
- Do you think the Church should be more transparent with its finances, or would that lead to bad outcomes?
- Will this latest “scandal” blow over like Mormons, Inc. did or will it result in less engagement from Church members (and a reduction in tithing payment)?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
The present trends reflect, that for the most part, your attitude towards the Church telegraphs how you will react to this news.
I would feel a lot less cynical if that were not the case. And much more hopeful for change.
By the way, here is what Forbes had to say:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2019/12/17/100b-in-mormon-till-does-not-merit-irs-attention/
“So in my view, reporting this to the IRS is pointless, but that does not mean that there is nothing worth discussing. You can see discussion on ex-Mormon sites like this one about the sinister nature of the accumulation. One person I wrote to indicated it reminded him of the Boys Town story, where the storied charity’s raising of excess funds was exposed by none other than Warren Buffett.”
(Note I comment as Stephen M when autofill or other resources aren’t taking over the fill in the blank chores—that is my comment above).
The new Simpsons Christmas episode (Published before this story hit) showed Reverend Lovejoy, struggling with writer’s block before his Christmas service. “Dear Lord, I’m just a small town minister, we don’t have Mormon money, but if you could see your way to guiding my fingers as I type this sermon…” Lol.
In response to your questions, the church has not been good stewards of our funds as they were too zealous and less wise/charitable. Despite the fact we dislocate our shoulders patting ourselves on the back about our welfare work, I’ve long thought it was lacking. Yes, transparency would help, but we’re a little late. Do tithing policies need to be revised? Absolutely. Will doing anything at this point be knee-jerk? Yup. But, it needs to happen because no, this will not blow over. Our country is suffering from a deep leadership crisis at the moment- this couldn’t have come at a worse time. Whether you are horrified at the fall of democracy with an idiotic cheese puff at the helm, or think that the deep state had corrupted the Clintons and a billionaire business man is draining the swamp, or point out the 1% that has hijacked all the power, no one trusts anything organized and current leadership. Im not trying to thread jack this post with politics, just pointing out our leadership and organizational crisis.
There isn’t anything more poisonous than jealousy and suspicion over money/tithes. Remember, this is what ultimately corrupted Judas. Deep dark stuff folks, everyone should keep that in mind.
Has anyone seen the faithful responses on twitter to the church’s statement? Essentially, many stalwartly refuse to believe anything done by the lords anointed servants is amiss and are labeling the claims as Satan’s lies. So, if there is an LDS cohort that is raising an eyebrow about this, we as a people are likely divided.
I agree people’s responses to these questions will be heavily filtered by the suspicion or trust they already have. But I think there’s a sizable chunk in the middle that are uneasy about the lack of transparency—and the regressive nature of tithing— but want to trust that the funds are being used for good. And many in that crowd (of which I’m part, and many of which I’ve spoken to live) views this as evidence that we need greater transparency and that the church has not been as charitable as we’d expected or hoped. For many people, the church is their primary source of charitable giving and indeed exhausts their budget for such giving. Learning that such a small fraction of vast resources is actually given certainly gives one pause. Personally it’s hard to disentangle this news from the policy changes that broke the same day as further evidence that trust has not been earned. Absolutely I don’t think church leadership is evil or malicious and I believe they are doing what they think is right—but I don’t think they and I are operating from the same set of values anymore.
For years now we have been lectured not to question and had it pounded in that we will not be led astray by the lord’s annointed which has led to much apathy—as in the world situation currently. Zion doth prosper.
What concerns me is that this is only regarding one of two investment houses of the church. What about the other one and the real estate arm of the church.
Tithing is biblical and was brought back to get the church out of debt and solvent…bing bing bing! Goal reached.
I can understand why public individuals and institutions don’t want the inconvenience of transparency. So many opinions to have to defend against. But it’s also a guardrail to prevent the situations the church and Trump now find themselves in.
If public individuals and institutions won’t hold themselves to a standard of transparency it must be forced on them with the most dire consequences necessary. To sit back and allow the excesses we can see before us is to agree to permit them in others for the future.
Supporters deserve it. Public individuals and institutions need it.
God bless N. Eldon Tanner. He made the Church rich. And, all things considered, it’s better to be a rich church than a poor one.
The Church’s problem is that it NEEDS TO SPEND MORE MONEY. Obviously, it could just distribute some of the bulging surplus to the membership, but they won’t ever do that — in their eyes, it’s Jesus Christ’s money, not ours. They could lower tithing to 7% until some of the surplus is drawn down, but (in their minds) that might deprive members of the blessings of paying 10%, although most members would be happy with the offsetting blessing of paying down debt or building up their own savings.
Other ideas to help the Church spend more money: Hire janitors, please. Give every missionary a car. Give the Big 15 a raise. Commission a really nice statue of N. Eldon Tanner outside the COB. None of this is going to touch a $100 billion pile of money. Honestly, it’s hard to come up with responsible ways to spend more money. We’re a Church, not Apple Computer. They really need to reduce tithing revenue because they just don’t have expenditure needs to match those revenues.
Another casualty: LDS credibility takes another hit. You can’t trust what they say about LDS history. You can’t trust what they say about membership and activity and exit statistics. Now you can’t trust what they say about finances (“Oh, we forgot to mention that $100 billion fund?”). They have expanded their financial assets while depleting their credibility.
Let’s put it into perspective. There are over 16 million members. Meaning $6,250 per member. This almost sounds like the local politician who heard the university I work for had stock piled a quarter of Billion Dollars and wanted it for their pet project until someone pointed out the funds equated to two weeks of vacation and a week of sick leave…not much of a stock pile.
hawkgrrrl, thanks for your insights.. Too many commenters on Sam Brunson’s brief Monday night post seemed to recognize internally that the vast wealth accumulation is troubling, but were waiting on Sam to frame it for them so it would be all right.
How about if we use scriptures to liken it unto us?:
First is Corban. Christ condemns Corban in Matthew 15:3-6 and Mark 7:9-13. The Bible Dictionary defines Corban as anything dedicated to God, and therefore not available for ordinary use. In the New Testament the Pharisees employed the Corban label to exempt them from using their means to help their parents. The Church used to fund hospitals. Now we invest for profits. Are we making “the commandments of God of none effect by [our] traditions”?
Second is the parable of the talents. I have a difficult time picturing Christ supporting a hundred billion investment portfolio when there are great needs in our own midst, and even greater beyond. Claiming it needs to be saved for the Lord’s Second Coming to somehow be used during the millennium echoes the man entrusted with two talents: “Lord, I knew that thou art an hard man, . . . And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine”. How is keeping the money in an Ensign Peak Advisors portfolio different from burying it in the earth, versus using it for greater good, symbolically?
Third, when we (as a church) look on a man stripped of his raiment, wounded by thieves at the side of the road, do we “pass by on the other side” or have compassion on him, go to him, bind up his wounds, bring him to get professional care, leaving money for future needs. Are we the Samaritan or the Levite?
A hundred billion dollars is a lot of money. I don’t think most of can really comprehend how large it is. The comparison with other portfolios helped. The church needs to lead morally and ethically, not join questionable trends.
How many of us deserve to be told, “OK, boomer”? Can we make the world a better place now and for future earthly generations?
After nearly 40 years of full activity and regular (even generous) tithing and other contributions to the church, I chose to quit paying tithing two years ago. I made this choice because I began to see tithing as an exercise in loyalty / trust for an institution that I felt was asking for too much loyalty, and offering too little love and compassion to both members and the broader community. I never felt that the church spent money recklessly, though I found myself at odds with its priorities at times. After realizing that I had cumulatively spent more on tithing than I had stocked away for retirement and college savings for kids, I feel fine taking a break from paying my tithing to the church.
I’m actually not opposed to the principle of tithing, though I’d rather choose to have my money perform the Lord’s work outside of the church. I gave money for disaster relief instead, and chose to give some funds to support a struggling family in our circle. I decided to vote my values with my wallet rather than trust the church to do it for me.
Maybe while were changing from three to two hour church, eliminating quorums, changing home and visiting teaching to ministering, we can talk about whether a person should really pay tithing before paying down debts, utility bills, and food. That might be nice.
I am not a fan of the regressive nature of tithing. And I think asking people to pay tithing before paying for the basic needs of their families is ethically questionable.
There is no way to know if funds are managed well without transparency. On the other hand, the church has little, maybe nothing, to gain from being transparent. No one is going to suddenly begin believing in the church if the church suddenly becomes transparent in its finances. On the other hand, there are lots of people that will find something wrong with the financial management. In my opinion, the church should be more transparent and let the chips fall where they may, but I acknowledge it is likely not in its self-interest.
I think another good question is this: why is this church holding (or perhaps hoarding, lol) all this money? It is my observation that members donate a lot of money in tithing, and leaders at both the local and general level seem very reluctant to spend it. This observation could be incorrect, but without more transparency we will never know.
At the local level, budgets seem rather low. When someone I know what in the primary presidency, they were trying to plan four primary activities for the year. When they were told how much money they were budgeted they were shocked. It amounted to 80 cents per kid. They asked for more, but the bishopric didn’t think it was appropriate use of sacred funds. So basically, all the activities were done with no budget, and at one activity they had cookies for refreshments. Now I don’t know how local budgets are determined. Do the local wards get to decide how much they can spend? Do they have to budget limited funds from headquarters? I don’t know. But I know that if I donated $10 a month to the local public radio station I’d get a coffee mug back.
At the general level, when the church announces aid it is always using numbers that sound big, but are relatively small in comparison to the billions that are reportedly available to the church.
Which is fine. The church can decide when to hold money, when to spend on humanitarian efforts, and when not to. But I get the feeling that the church has painted itself into a corner. Because of past teachings, it must ask everyone for 10 percent. Because of tradition, it can’t spend money on clergy. It can’t pay bishops or missionaries (who should be worthy of their hire) because of traditions that say we have a lay clergy. It’s actually really hard to spend a lot of money on humanitarian efforts in a effective manner. And all local units operate largely on shoestring budgets and volunteered time. For heaven’s sake, we don’t even hire janitors for the church buildings.
We were instructed locally that if tithing came in and they only put the last name of the family on the donation slip, it was to be entered under the head of the households name. If the couple puts both of their names on the donation slip, it is still to be entered under the name of the male. If you want it entered under the name of the female, only put the females name on the donation slip because the default will always go to the male. Most people are unaware of this and many don’t care, but it is easy to see how the women just feel unrecognized in this whole process.
I agree with your regressive tax assessment. I have never had to skip a meal, not buy clothes, not pay bills, or even skip a vacation in order to pay tithing, so this report does not anger me as much as it might some other. I also have never looked at tithing as an investment in hopes of some return, so I am happy to know the church is doing well. If they were asking for more money because they were over there wasting money, I would be much more upset.
The church will not be more transparent and this will blow over. Just please do not build more temples in southern Idaho. The ones we have are already empty and they are having troubles staffing them. The cleaning and sealing assignments doled out to each ward are being filled by the same people and those people are burning out.
Build schools, hospitals, community centers etc. Have the missionaries spend the daytime hours staffing these centers and then they can preach the gospel for a couple hours in the evening with the references they gather during the day of service. Get moving on this please. I have three sons that I really want to serve missions.
(Sometimes I post on here pretending Ucthdorf is secretly a fan of W&T.)
Stephen M,
I don’t think I agree with your first statement. I am generally pro-church (though I would make some changes if I could), but I was pretty disturbed by the story. Like the OP mentioned, one of the first things I thought about was lifting up the poorest of our membership out of poverty. Healthcare is one of the things that came to my mind as well.
Also, is this an ex-mormon site? I’ve been reading W&T for many years, and I’m not sure I’ve ever seen it described that way.
Having a solid financial surplus, even a type of endowment, which allows the church to operate using investment income as opposed to relying solely on donations, may be considered prudent financial management by some. Particularly when worldwide church membership demographics and donation trends show that at some point operating expenditures will exceed member donations (which I have addressed here: https://wheatandtares.org/2018/06/01/on-the-churchs-financial-position/). But if the church gets to a point where its investment fund generates enough income that it no longer needs to rely on donations for its operations, is it fair to keep asking for donations for the purpose of “building the kingdom of God”? Should the church pay closer attention to the Savior’s words to his disciples – “take no thought for the morrow” – and instead of relying on worldly business and financial principles to accumulate vast amounts of wealth, rely more on faith and on the commitment of its members to fund operations ? It seems there should be some kind of balance between complete financial self-sufficiency and living hand to mouth, as it were. I begin to become uncomfortable when the widow’s mite is not really being used to fund the kingdom of God (i.e., funding church operations) anymore, but is simply adding to a vast investment fund that, by its very existence, does away with the need for such donations.
Markamarsh: you pointed out that the stockpile of $100,000,000,000 is only $6250 per member, assuming 16 million members. But consider this: at least half of the Church membership is inactive, so now we are up to $12,500 per member. Now consider that adults (who pay the great bulk of tithing) probably constitute only 1/3 of the membership. So now we are up to $37,500 per member. That’s a lot of money from each one of us.
Mark—one issue is that all projections for Church growth anticipate a negative revenue point is coming—where the cost of running the Church in third world countries outstrips the current revenue stream, meaning that the long term prospect is a perpetual drain on endowments or savings.
Generally very few people care about that.
I’m still pondering the impact that makes on any analysis.
I get the “how many $ per member” calculation because of the comparison to another unwieldy stockpile out there: university endowments. The difference here is that university endowments are supposed to be used to help more poor students be able to attend. Tithing funds are only partly to help with the running of our wards, but also to do charitable works. I don’t think it’s the most salient comparison as a result.
Personally, I think the bigger issue is that to solve the very real, very big problems we had in the 70s, before we really had a growth boom, we used depression era thinking. It solved the problems, but let’s be honest, we probably went too far and created some excessive hardships that weren’t necessary then, much less now. Yes, if it’s the depression, you probably can convince yourself to tax Bob Cratchitt’s coal and Little Timmy’s crutch and tell them they are ingrates if they don’t contribute. But when you’re sitting on a stockpile that would make Smaug uncomfortable, it’s probably time to dial back to what the D&C actually says (pay tithing on one’s increase or surplus). That alone would fix a lot of the problem, and at this point, the money is what’s going to make more money, not the tithing.
bodensmate: Definitely not an Ex-Mo site. I missed where someone claimed that. It feels like a ridiculous assertion if so, but there are plenty of people out there willing to make ridiculous assertions.
Zach: All of my posts are under the assumption that Uchtdorf reads and loves the site! I’ll just say, the site loves Uchtdorf, and we would like to imagine it’s reciprocated.
Stephen R. Marsh. Anticipating the costs of running the church in developing countries does complicate the picture. Even more complicated, is considering whether we really should anticipate that it will be a perpetual drain, or if developing countries actually might develop. Korea and China and Japan’s economies have changed enormously over the last 50 odd years. Apparently China is now “investing” in ‘human capital’ in Africa by building infrastructure, training workers, anticipating on economic growth. I know it’s all very complicated, but potentially, sending humanitarian aid in before maximising missionary efforts in developing countries might be less of a drain.
I don’t really know the details though. It’s far outside my expertise. It certainly seems like a lot to think about.
josh h
When you put it that way it would appear to be a good deal of money. From my perspective over a life time it still is not much money at all. In very static terms…people work 40 years so we are talking $937.50 a year given your reduction by active membership. The Admin in the department I work in has a coffee habit. It runs them $4,00 for the small coffee which they prefer (the Mocca with wipe cream is $.50 more). The cost for over a year is $1,460 and that does not count the times they splurge for their spouse. In reality we are talking about the sum paid for the standard coffee habit.
The real question as Stephen pointed out is the projection of negative revenue when the church expands into third world countries.
your argument would resonate with me more if, in your example, the guy who paid $1,460 per year for coffee made a salary of $14,600
I agree that Sam Brunson’s BCC post is a great overview of the situation.
The church definitely squandered trust here. Leader’s have repeatedly poor-mouthed the church’s financial situation by explaining the assets they have are primarily non revenue/revenue consuming infrastructure such as chapels and temples in need of constant infusions of tithes. Apparently, the annual revenue alone, from a $100 billion fund, could fund the church’s annual operating costs.
Additionally, if the claim is true that the church used tithing funds, to the tune of $1.4 Billion, to bail out the City Creek mall after years of denying such transfers – why should anyone trust leader statements on use of tithing in the future? This is a big hit to “Don’t worry about transparency, you can trust us.”
Regarding City Creek – I would be steamed if I had invested in the Gateway mall and found my tithing went to fund a competing operation that helped drop revenues in half.
Interesting – in April 2003 President Hinckley announced in general conference that the “extensive and expensive” remodeling of the malls (what would later be City Creek) would be paid for by both commercial ventures AND interest from invested reserve funds (like the Ensign Peak fund). They were more transparent than we realized.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2003/04/the-condition-of-the-church?lang=eng
Zach: I know the way the church handles attributing tithes to the male as default, but in 2019 even having a term like Head of Household in active use is galling. As for assuming women are financial dependents whose money all belongs to our husbands, it’s almost like nobody in church leadership has watched the Handmaid’s Tale!
My Nephew wants to serve an LDS mission. He submitted his paperwork but when it got to the Bishop it was put on hold. The Bishop said he needed to work more and save up more of his own money for the mission. The parents do not have enough money to contribute.
Hence he is now working for the past 6 months saving up money to serve for the mission. But in the meantime he is wasting time and getting on with his life and delaying pursuing a University education. There is a fine line are contributing to ones own mission and this system Imagine how these funds could help the thousands of families who sacrifice to delay their life to pay for mission. you your time 2 years. your effort and everything else during the broken mission system. The LDS sacrifice model of obedience and giving to the institution is soooo beyond broken. This is another fruit of their broken system. If they do not make changes quick it will be zero members left who know how to think for themselves
Dave C if you go back and read the story about Kem Gardner and how the church alerted him to divest his money from gateway with city Creek coming up then you would be really appalled.
And then Kim Gardner go ahead and donated a cabin and house to elder utchdorff in Heber Utah…….. read the story…. We should all know the whole truth of what the general authorities are getting on the side.
The Q15 all have multimillion Dollar homes along with 2nd houses. Sure they may work hard but so do the rest of us. Where we supporting their lifestyles. Missionaries are living in appalling conditions for 2 years under the sacrifice and obieience.
At bare minimum the church should be founding funding the Bountiful foundation which helps malnourished kids who are members of the church. It was previously known as the Liahona children’s foundation.
For members who are open minded and want to truly make a difference this would be a much better use of your tithing dollars
The LDS church should be embarrassed that this group is helping their own when the pharisees themselves refuse to even do such. I have personal insight that the Q15 refuse to even donate or support this group. It is still under committee.
How big 100 billion is:
From my_dog_ma at SL Tribune comment site, World Table: “They could provide $20 million to every state in the country to combat homelessness, you know, like the tent city four blocks from the Temple… and then they could send $100 million to 100 different countries to improve their living conditions, sponsor micro loans, build infrastructure for fresh water, sewage….
“And STILL have $89 BILLION in reserve.
“Hoarding? I say we are WAY beyond hoarding.”
If donations like these were administered with oversight, but no strings attached, can you imagine the goodwill that would result?
We have an enormous amount of money buried, waiting for the Second Coming. If it were tomorrow, would Christ view us as a goat or a sheep church?
Stephen,
I was unaware of President Hinckley’s April 2003 statement about using interest from a reserve fund. In the preceding paragraph he states:
“But I wish to give the entire Church the assurance that tithing funds have not and will not be used to acquire this property. Nor will they be used in developing it for commercial purposes.”
Which would leave me the cursory impression, however, that funds were totally unrelated to tithing. However, making the distinction about using interest could be just that. What is interesting here is that David or Lars Nielson may have been aware of the “interest” statement. In the pdf that Lars Nielsen made available regarding the Ensign Peak Advisors fund, it pointedly states in footnote “h” that expenditures for the City Creek mall were not interest:
“It is true that PRI did finance some of the City Creek Mall, but most of the financing came from EPA using exclusively never-invested tithing dollars ($1.4 billion).”
The pdf does not state how that is known.
Regarding this: “It is true that PRI did finance some of the City Creek Mall, but most of the financing came from EPA using exclusively never-invested tithing dollars ($1.4 billion).”
I think it would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove this claim. Money is fungible, which means that you can’t really say which dollar pays for what. Unless the fund failed to ever, earn the 1.4 billion dollars, I don’t think one can say the money wasn’t from the earnings. Maybe Nielsen, or someone else here, has an answer for that.
in order to agree with the Church’s explanations about its finances, you have to agree that there is a difference between “tithing funds” and interest generated from tithing. But both pots originated with tithing payments itself. It’s a little too cute of a distinction.
Here’s a parallel: When Planned Parenthood says that they don’t use government money to fund abortions, they are technically correct. But by receiving federal funding for other PP operations, they are able to use other pots of money for abortion services.
In both cases, the organization is telling the truth but is also leaving out part of the story. The Church could not fund programs / investments that don’t use tithing were it not for tithing in the first place. PP could not fund abortion services were it not for federal subsidies that allow it dedicate other funds for such services.
I think Jesus Christ would be ashamed of what “the Church” has become….and, what it has (or has not) done with it’s vast wealth. I know am. To even think of “the Church” building yet another multi-million dollar monstrosity (Temple) in areas where there are multiple Temples already available….makes me want to spit fire. What a travesty!
“God bless N. Eldon Tanner. He made the Church rich. And, all things considered, it’s better to be a rich church than a poor one.”
This has been bothering me all day. Dave B is, of course, entitled to his opinion but I would be prouder if it said:
God bless N. Eldon Tanner. He made the the world a better place for the poor and the needy. And, all things considered, it’s better to be a church that can accomplish that than a rich one.”
My initial calcution of $ per active member was $20000, but if I try to limit it to adults I guess it’s much higher. I suppose 40k might be a good guesstimate.
I think its relevant because it gives an idea of how long the church could continue operations without tithing income. (Answer: years). I’m also operating under the assumption that very little goes to humanitarian use; as far as I know only I small portion is used for welfare it humanitarian causes. In fact, until yesterday, I thought that all welfare and humanitarian funds were spent from other reserved accounts, which I no longer think I’d quite accurate.
I agree that, as I’m struggling with other issues, that this hit me hard, but it also hit me hard because I’ve had two personal experiences. 1) My mother worked for the Church since I can remember, first as a custodian, until the Church turned that over to the ward members, and then as an FM (going around stocking member closets, repairing damage, etc.).. well the Church just let all the FMs go and kept the mechanics (the big stuff like heater repair)… so at 60, my mom is having to look for work. And to see what happened to her severance once taxes were paid, and watch her as she tries to find classes to learn Office to try and become hireable… with the pittance the Church gave her for “education”… it just boils my blood! They have whatever BILLON and my mom is unemployed and scared.
2) I’ve had to take a lot of unpaid time off at work for my mental health. I work full time. I’m single… I’m all I’ve got. So when I asked the bishop for help with rent, he asked me to work for 10 hours at the local DI… and I just… WHEN? When do I have time to work at DI? And to find out there’s Whatever billion just sitting there…gah.
Harvard’s endowment is less than half of the church’s. Another difference between them is that Harvard’s presumably originated with donations from wealthy alumni. The church’s comes from tithing by members from all walks of life. Some very wealthy, some working class, and some from people with subsistence living conditions.
The church’s statements (official, or by their henchmen) are disturbingly proud of the accumulation. They distort the meaning of the parable of the talents, reducing it to money alone. I don’t like the church’s God.
If the institution loses or gains, it will be criticized—for giving too much, and for not giving enough; it will be criticized for saving too much, and for not saving enough. So transparency does not benefit the institution.
I hope the institution has a Joseph-in-Egypt plan, because worldwide food scarcity is upon us. I hope those rainy-day savings get put to use towards clean water, healthy soil, and holistic food production…
I am a life long members and have been a full tithe payer my whole life. The fact that they are sitting on that much money makes me sick. Many of us struggle to pay tithing . Many of us fork over money out of our own pocket to help with ward activities, not to mention all the food that is donated. As Relief Society Presidency member I was keenly aware of all the receipts that were never turned in. I had a Homemaking Leader whose husband lost his job. She never turned in receipts to get reimbursed. I wanted to have a nice RS dinner for the sisters. The budget they gave me wouldn’t cut it so I paid for the catering myself. Don’t even get me started about members having to clean the building. To anyone in leadership that is listening. . . this is abuse. I think I am going to take the Rock Waterman approach and cut way back on my tithing.
Life is short. Despite numerous hysterical warnings, Christ has not come again. If you have that much money and you’re not really doing anything to fix problems that plague your species and your planet, what’s the point? Why have it if it isn’t going for anything substantive?
What to do with $100b ???
1) pay for all missionaries. Anyone (sr or young adult) who wants and is qualified should go without purse or script (like the scriptures say). The church can pay.
2) give the Perpetual Education Fund a push into the stratosphere.
3) free college/professional education for ALL saints. Expand BYU. Explode digitally.
4) fund lds arts. (Seriously- why keep this at a trickle? ) fund it everywhere. Commission works in every format, from every lds artist/composer. Blog posts constantly bemoan the lack of LDS shakespeares , kitschy art, and the end for more music. Invest in art- all art. Isn’t art transformative and doesn’t it have the potential to speak to the spirit more than anything else?
5) invest in more land and help the saints put their shoulder into natural preservation, agriculture and charity. (No hunting preserves please). Save national parks. Update buildings to be Leed certified.
6) novel idea. Eradicate diseases, hunger and poverty.
7) hire janitors. Thank you.
6) buy back ancestry.com and fund additional genealogy technology/platforms/research.
7) kick start the United order. Wouldn’t that be a helpful crutch to get us past survival/sustenance levels into a higher way? Maybe with a safety net we’d have a chance.
*im going to say “heck no” to giving the big 12 raises. They have exponentially kore than the average member, especially non-western members. It separates them too much from us.
Excellent suggestions, Mortimer.
I think they should provide the excellent health care that missionaries deserve too. I’ve read too many stories of missionaries with significant illness and injury who are bullied into coping with them on their own or offered inadequate and inappropriate care because it’s free and not because it’s up to the need.
“They [the churches] rob the poor because of their fine sanctuaries; they rob the poor because of their fine clothing…” (2 Nephi 28:13). Makes me wonder if Nephi wasn’t speaking of us (the LDS church)? Also makes me wonder how much poverty we could relieve with $100B?
Apologies, my numbering formatting was broken. Please excuse the typos. Alice, amen. Missionaries should receive healthcare support. I served without health insurance (prior to ACA, insurance companies could kick kids off parents’ plans at younger ages.) There are still many who Serve w/o insurance and who do not seek medical care during missions due to finances. (Culture also discourages proactive healthcare distracting missionaries from the work, but access is a problem.)
Well, I see it this way…if the church thinks it’s so important to save for the Second Coming, then I’m onboard. I’ll invest my 10% in a 401k and by the time Jesus comes, I should have a healthy nest egg to hand over to him. I’m kinda sure he’s gonna have some tough questions for me, though. And if it’s for a rainy day fund, it will take 100 billion to support the wealthy lifestyle of the Mormons along the Wasatch Front. I’ve seen how they live.
Stephen, your point about funding the developing world gives me pause for thought, as there seems to be little prospect of these cultures enabling either self – development or self -reliance.
But wouldn’t it have been better to signal the intent to do good to humanity rather than to do good to ourselves during the ‘millenium’, whenever that may be, assuming we”ll be needing cash post apocalypse.
Again, this loses me my kids…
Great quote Bishop Bill shared: “…we expect to see the day when we will not have to ask you for one dollar of donation for any purpose, except that which you volunteer to give of your own accord, because we will have tithes sufficient in the storehouse of the Lord to pay everything that is needful for the advancement of the kingdom of God.” Joseph F. Smith 1907 General Conference
We are literally there, although as with wealth, you never really achieve whatever your goal is because the goalposts always move out further. You can never have enough. That’s the problem with money, and why we shouldn’t set our hearts on it. The church could currently run completely off the interest of the $100B without depleting the nest egg (and remember, that’s just the ONE fund we know about). That’s how this amount of wealth works.
That’s why it’s a little disingenuous for them to say they save their PENNIES and to liken this to the parable of the talents. Yes, they literally made wise investments, and given the history kudos to them. It’s a HUGE accomplishment. But now, here we are. What’s the point of the church’s money? Handing it to Jesus at the second coming sounds a lot like the bad investor in the parable of the talents. Aren’t we supposed to be using it to make the world a better place, to further gospel work, to lift people out of poverty, to do the things the Lord would do? Isn’t that also investing, but in the gospel, not in hedge funds?
I don’t personally support using the money to pay for missions unless the mission of missions changes drastically. If we continue as is, we’re just perpetuating the push for more tithe payers.
Missions could be converted to do progressive, meaningful humanitarian aid. These new missions could be paid and underwritten by the church, with missionaries volunteering their time.
We would be a force for good.
Here’s a thought: what if we were still encouraged to pay tithing, but in ways that improve our communities? I read a piece on where big Jeopardy! winners spend their winnings. It seems like Ken Kennings’ get lost in the church’s black hole, while the other two’s went to their public libraries, local schools, etc. We could think more of others, using research, creativity and ingenuity to find meaningful purposes for our tithes.
With such a plan, I’d hope tithes of those who are wealthy and live in wealthy areas would find ways to use it for real good. Could direct it to a more needy area, or to the most needy among them (even San Francisco has a heart breaking number of homeless, which I saw emerge a few months ago walking through the tenderloin district at nighttime.) perhaps some could be used locally, with a percentage used abroad in developing countries.
Again, we would be a force for good throughout our entire lifetimes.
https://apple.news/AEcgTmnWoSJSmQsNctIvF6A
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1118501
Warehouse in Puerto Rico found full of unused relief supplies donated in 2017 to fill needs after Hurricane Maria devastated much of the island. Outrage. Demand answers. Calls for resignations.
Can we just have a discussion?