It was announced this week that James Huntsman is suing the Church for tithing funds he paid on the basis that they were used to fund commercial endeavors like the City Creek Mall rather than charitable giving. He resigned his membership last year. He seeks a return of over $5 million in tithing money.
The Church denies his claim in a statement by Eric Hawkins:
“In fact, tithing was not used on the City Creek project. As President Hinckley said in the April 2003 General Conference of the Church, the funds came from ‘commercial entities owned by the Church’ and the ‘earnings of invested reserve funds.’ A similar statement was made by President Hinckley in the October 2004 General Conference. Mr. James Huntsman’s claim is baseless.
“Tithing funds are voluntary contributions by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as an expression of their faith in God. They are used for a broad array of religious purposes, including missionary work, education, humanitarian causes and the construction of meetinghouses, temples and other buildings important to the work of the Church, as reflected in scripture and determined by Church leaders.”
You can read the lawsuit details here. If his suit is successful, which seems unlikely, he states he will donate the funds to pro-LGBT groups like Equality Utah where he is a board member. He states that he first became concerned when the whistleblower complaint surfaced about the $100B rainy day fund.
In the most recent Handbook update, the Church has discontinued the term “excommunication” in favor of “membership withdrawal,” which sounds a little more like being kicked out of a country club. In general, you can’t recoup past membership fees, even if you are removed from a club vs. choosing to leave it. In an online group last week, someone mentioned a gay couple that has been attending Church who were seemingly welcomed by the leadership, only to suddenly be sent a disciplinary letter that they are going to “withdraw their membership.” When I read that story, it occured to me that in refusing them membership, they are probably treading on thinner ice when it comes to keeping their tithing donations.
With our current pro-religion Supreme Court, the idea of refunded tithing would probably come to naught anyway. The Church is very careful to state that it can use funds in any way it chooses on the tithing receipt slips. Keeping the tithing of someone who is being kicked out feels morally mixed to me: 1) wrong in that the person in question wants to participate and is being done wrong in this process, having their membership denied to them unjustly, and 2) water under the bridge as the donations are made in the past; anyone can stop giving at any point in time. It feels a little bit like a break-up involving an engagement ring investment. If the member bought the ring, but then the Church kicked them out, the ring should go back. You don’t get to just breaks hearts and keep rings given in good faith, right?
Regardless, this type of lawsuit dredges up information that the Church might prefer not to have brought to light. Despite Eric Hawkins’ assurances, I have a little bit of curiosity about whether or not the Church did cross some lines between its commercial ventures, its maintenance and building, and its charitable giving. I tend to think the Church is super careful, too careful even, so I suspect they will be able to weather this storm legally. The real damage is likely to be member trust and public relations.
- What do you think James Huntsman’s real motive is? The PR black eye or the tithing refund? Both?
- What, if any, outcomes do you think will result from the lawsuit?
- Was your willingness to pay tithing impacted by knowledge of the $100B slush fund or any other of the Church’s financial endeavors?
- In general, do you think the Church is a good steward of the widow’s mite? Why or why not?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
Pres. Hinckley seems to be making the claim that tithing funds received directly from the membership are to be used only for “religious purposes,” which obviously excludes some objects of expenditure, whereas investment returns on invested tithing funds (“earnings of invested reserve funds”) are not subject to that limitation. Pres. Hinckley thinks earnings are the equivalent of fun money, to be spent however they want to, with no limitation. As if investing tithing funds, then getting investment returns, launders tithing money into spend-it-however-you-want money. That distinction sounded phony when I first heard it, and it sounds worse now that the hundred billion dollar size of the “reserve fund” is public knowledge.
Furthermore, soliciting tithing funds from the members with representations that it is used for charitable purposes, when in fact a decent chunk of those collected funds are diverted into a never-to-be-spent reserve fund (which conveniently generates the fun money they spend however they want to) certainly has a whiff of fraud, even if courts are hesitant to hold a church accountable for that sort of misrepresentation. I suspect the average judge would say in private something like this: “If people are gullible enough to give thousands of dollars, year after year, to an organization that won’t even publish financial statements showing donors how the money is used, they don’t really have any grounds for complaining that they didn’t know how the money was spent or not spent.”
I doubt very much his goal is to recoup the donations he made while a member. I’m sure he knows he doesn’t have a real case and his attorneys have told him that. He’s trying to embarrass the church and probably influence others to stop giving money to the church. I think the outcome is bad PR for the church. In my eyes, Mr. Huntsman looks vindictive and dishonest in this.
Honestly I don’t believe there is anything nefarious going on with the way the church handles it’s money. Everything I have ever seen leads me to believe as you say, the church is super careful. I think that careful and frugal culture has ultimately led to a very large fund that most people think it unnecessarily large. The fund doesn’t affect how I feel about donating to the church. The church’s legal war against LGBTQ people does.
Seems like a stunt to me, and a wasted one. The church is not transparent about how much tithing and what they do with it, but this is not the way to get more transparency.
Is there a better way to encourage the church to be fully transparent about how it is using donations and money? I don’t know. Inevitably if it were open about it some people would be upset at choices made. But, I think that kind of angst would be less damaging to the faithful membership of the church than the current strategy. It seems right now to avoid any criticism of those financial decisions the church leadership has decided to keep it all secret and then deal with public outrage when their is a disclosure or an analysis that shines some light on the financial background of the church. Unfortunately, this approach to me is a trust killer.
I was an auditor for the church and a ward financial clerk and know how carefully the church watches unit expenditures and donations on a local level and I presume on a systemic scale as well. But, it makes me reticent to donate 10% of my income to an org that won’t tell me what they do with it and then I learn from outside parties that they don’t really even need my money. It would go over so much better if there was a real financial report that included:
1. For profit investments – real estate, agriculture, stocks and bonds, businesses, etc. with a reason for the investment and how the church sees these investments to further the mission of the church .
2. Non-profit expenditures – infrastructure, real estate (Churches, temples, offices, Universities, etc.), salaries, charitable expenditures and investments. There is a cost to running the church and I think if this was transparent their donations would increase – not decrease.
3. Income – donations, for profit investments and businesses, etc
Then you can have a report that shows how the church plans on fulfilling its mission – proclaim the gospel, redeem the dead, perfect the saints, and serve the world with that money. Do that and I will gladly donate.
I was really on the fence on tithing in 2019 because of the Church’s involvement in anti-LGBT legal cases. I decided to (a) have some faith and be obedient and (b) recognize the Church also spent money on good things and pretend that my money was what was used for those things. So I paid.
Just weeks later the $100B news broke. I was sick over it. I didn’t pay in 2020 (donated elsewhere) and was happy to declare “no” in tithing settlement for 2020 (I know people who count their other charitable donations as “tithing” and declare yes and I also know my Bishop would have been good with that, but there’s just that rebellious teenager part of me that wanted to say “no”. Not that the Church probably cares or notices but I have to wonder what happened in 2020 after the news broke – I can’t be the only one who stopped paying after that).
Do I think Church leaders are evil money hoarders? No. I think honestly part of this just snuck up on them, no set of leaders before them had such a surplus to know how to deal with, and they aren’t visionary enough to figure out how to spend it. But until there is more transparency about tithing funds and the Church owns that they need to spend more to help others (instead of the ridiculous claim that they are saving it for Jesus) I don’t intend to be paying to them again.
It looks to me like their solution is – “build temples! Those cost a lot of money!” I am not impressed. Also, they make us pay tithing to get into temples. Cha-Ching!
*Two comments on scripture & tithing.
Keep me honest on this, but I read that Malachi 3:10 is not about Church members paying tithing – it is about *priests* who kept tithes and offerings for themselves. If that is the case, the Church is in violation. And as many will be aware, the Lorenzo Snow quote on tithing that refers to this scripture is completely misleadingly altered when it is shared to justify current tithing policies.
And when the Church defended the hoard by citing to the parable of the talents, it seemed to me they were interpreting it *literally* the opposite of what it means.
Basically, I think there are *so many* scriptures, many directly from Jesus’s mouth, that indict the Church here. So I think we really can’t be reading the same set if the Church thinks what it is doing with its vast resources is what God would have it do.
Sorry for the rant. I’m still really sore about this one.
Is anybody really surprised by this mean spirited publicity stunt? This Huntsman has been living in his brother’s shadow as is attacking the Church to get attention for himself and his paper.
The Salt Lake Tribune has been a vehicle for Huntsman’s attack ever since he purchased it. In fact, that may have been his very purpose behind the acquisition.
A man can not sue the local honky tonk because the money he paid for Irish nachos was not used to purchase styrofoam cups like he wanted. That would be ridiculous. So how can anyone expect to successfully sue a charity when the charity stated up front that donations could be used for any purpose?
Huntsman does not expect to win. He expects publicity for himself and his paper. It is likely that he will receive that attention from the great hordes who sit around in sweatpants and crocs waiting for the latest public controversy.
JCS, the Huntsman that chairs the Trib board is Paul, not James.
John Charity Spring, you’re conflating Huntsman brothers. James Huntsman is the one who filed the lawsuit. Paul Huntsman is the one who purchased the Salt Lake Tribune. So your accusation that Paul Huntsman purchased the newspaper to embarrass the church is baseless. I’m also not sure why denigrating the newspaper and its readers has anything to do with this post.
For what it’s worth, the change to tithing forms is relatively recent. James Huntsman’s lawsuit points out that he has been paying tithing for nearly 30 years, long before the tithing form was changed. I also think the church is being coy with its statements here. The church would have no money, period, without tithing. No money to invest. No money to buy or build malls. No money to see pile up in rainy day funds None. All the church’s money is tithing money. So I think it’s fundamentally dishonest to claim that investment returns generated by tithing money is somehow “laundered,” as another commenter put it, into fun money the church can spend however it likes. It makes me uncomfortable how much money is being spent on causes I view as being antithetical to the mission of Christianity, like the church’s obsession with marginalizing LGBTQIA+ people. It makes me similarly uncomfortable that the church makes tithing a requirement for membership in good standing, and regularly takes it from struggling people when the church doesn’t need it. It makes these same struggling families pay for the privilege of having their children serve missions for the church to bring the church…more tithing payers. Seems to me like the church should be paying missionaries for their marketing efforts, not the other way around.
I am glad the Church has a reserve fund — think of how many airplanes the church chartered in March of last year to bring missionaries back to their home countries.
I see the Huntsman suit as a publicity effort intended to injure the institutional Church. His lawyers have to know that he has zero chance of winning in court and recouping many years of voluntary gifts.
@ji are you being sarcastic? You think they need $100B in case they need to bring missionaries home? $100B is an unfathomable amount of money. I don’t think anyone is suggesting they shouldn’t have a savings fund but $100B is insane.
Yes, the suit is probably for publicity. But I think bringing publicity to a practice you think is harmful and abusive in order to create awareness change is a perfectly fine thing to do. Certainly the Church doesn’t give us any other options for feedback or input so the fact people feel driven to do stuff like this shows how powerless we are / feel within the structure.
“the funds came from ‘commercial entities owned by the Church’ and the ‘earnings of invested reserve funds.’”
If tithing is the genesis of all these reserve funds and entities, I believe it should ALL be used as tithing for religious and charitable purposes – with an emphasis on charitable.
Without our tithing, there are no reserve funds. Without the invested reserve funds, there are no profit and growth earnings or means to purchase investment and commercial properties.
Isn’t the way the church is profiting off tithing akin to stealing from the poor and needy? And isn’t their wordplay nothing more than a way to keep the blinders on and mislead us?
___
John Charity Spring – really?
Dave B (and others): the Church likes to draw a line between tithing funds and investments generated from tithing funds. Apparently the former is to be used for religious purposes but the latter can be used for whatever. But my point is: didn’t the latter come from the former in the first place? The informed membership realizes that the $124b+ that the Church has “invested” is rooted in tithing money. The money didn’t fall off a tree.
Sorry JCS but members do have the right to question their leaders and actions of their leaders or else we wouldn’t have comment consent laws in our church?
The very act of asking for a reoccurring sustaining of leaders at conference implies that a member is expected to carefully consider if the leader should in fact be in their position.
Whether or not the general membership has abrogated that right is another topic but please don’t slander those of us that have chosen to research and ask questions. I’m pretty sure that’s how our restoration was started.
I’ve been thinking –
Since the church is making money from our tithing, shouldn’t the profits count as our tithing contribution, meaning, based on the billions and billions TSCC has earned, we have all, in effect, prepaid our tithing commitment from now to eternity?
With this, all who desire are temple legal.
$124G now–nice growth! Could have a Mormon Charities larger than Catholic Charities –with enough and to spare.
I have severely limited tithing to the church over the past several years. But sacrifice and tithing are still part of “right living”, so I give to a variety of charities, what I would owe tithing and more. To be able to choose who you give to is liberating! And it is a great feeling to think of yourself as a small-time philanthropist.
TC, I’m totally on board.
Don’t forget that money is fungible, especially in the context of an organization that operates with financial opacity and continues to assert its right to use donations however they see fit. A dollar into one of the Church’s pots is as good as a dollar in any other. For the Church to try and draw lines between its accounts is irrelevant when their finances are veiled in secrecy.
I also believe the Brethren have good intentions and are not willingly orchestrating a grand fraud scheme, but simply doing the best they know how to run a rapidly evolving global organization with limited physical energy and limited perspectives (both conditions of being old, mostly white men). While I don’t think the Huntsman lawsuit will really go anywhere, I do think he has a legitimate grievance to air, and I welcome the spotlight on the Church’s financial practices.
In recent years I have adjusted my own tithing practices. I give what I can to causes that are important to me, especially those that have impact in my community. I’ve also been able to focus more of my disposable income on paying down debt, toward getting a better financial foothold for my family. I give almost no money to the Church anymore, but consider myself a full-tithe payer. When I was a financial clerk it always made me cringe a little at the thought of the elderly widows in my ward who payed a generous tithe on their social security income, though they could scarcely afford to.
The church seized land from Native Americans when it came to Utah. The church had its wealth confiscated by the US government in the late 1800s in the bout over polygamy and fell into deep debt. It got itself out of debt through tithing. We know that the church siphons off a portion of tithing funds to put into Ensign Peak to build it $100 billion fund. Explain to me, how is City Creek not funded through tithing? Tithing money that was placed into a special fund or endowment which was then invested and sloshed around and then eventually placed into City Creek still makes City Creek the result of tithing money does it not? As far as I can tell, the church is just appealing to disingenuous seedy defense lawyer tactics in their definition of tithing, are they not?
Huntsman’s lawsuit isn’t going anywhere.
Why?
Because it is legal for religious institutions to collect tithes under the auspices of charitable use but to continually delay using all those tithes for charitable purposes and invest those “excess” tithes in for-profit businesses.
This issue isn’t new. When the church developed the City Creek shopping mall there was another very public uproar.
The U.S. church doesn’t have to publicly disclose it’s financial statements, but in other countries it does, allowing one to see somewhat what was done with the money in that country. But, those financials also reveal “excess” funds are sent to the U.S. where there is no transparency.
I do know someone that stopped paying tithing when the huge amount of the reserve funds was made public.
I, myself have many questions about the use of tithing funds. I have seen money squandered within the church–like one year carpeting the cultural hall and then less than 5 years later, ripping up the carpet and refinishing the wood floor underneath it.
I wonder about the continued building of extravagant temples. Could we not learn, perform and practice these functions in our ward houses? or smaller, less opulent structures?
It is hard to see all the suffering here and abroad while our church sits on a vast “nest egg,” with no transparency.
If the $100B fund exists, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the church had indeed amassed that much money, then I think it’s just another “old man” problem. From what I understand, it wasn’t that long ago (historically) that N Eldon Tanner managed to pull the church out of the red, and there was a very frugal mindset that was fostered in the church to accomplish that. It’s not a mindset that can readily adapt to the idea that one is suddenly rich. It’s kind of like Sam Walton driving around his old pickup truck even though Walmart had made him a billionaire. Driving the old pickup truck was seen as virtuous. We don’t see it that way now. Paying his workers more would have been virtuous, and he could have driven a Mercedes for all we care. Also, I think there’s been a strong mentality that the church doesn’t give handouts but “hand ups” — not money, but assistance — which can include money, but requires a lot more work. But the church doesn’t really have the infrastructure that other large charitable organizations have to do that work. Nor has the church wanted to create it — remember Pres. Hinckley’s assurances that the church wouldn’t be creating a big bureaucracy in creating the Perpetual Education Fund? The church’s fiscally conservative approach has been very successful in acquiring wealth, but not in using it. Any virtue taken too far can become a vice. I think there’s just becoming an awareness that figuratively “driving the old truck” is ridiculous in the face of billion dollar wealth. I also don’t think that most church leaders have been particularly focused on money. I think it’s been viewed as a necessity they’re glad they no longer have to worry about, rather than a tool they can use to accomplish the church’s mission.
OR, maybe the church is planning to buy Jackson County, I don’t know (is Jackson County worth more than $100B? ).
Anyway, the church is going to have to address this issue because paying tithing is considered an important sacrifice for people to make — for their own spiritual development. But unnecessary sacrifices seem silly.
As for whether the City Creek Mall development was paid for out of tithing, I think it’s kind of moot. Tithing became church assets, which are invested and incur investment expenses. So, you’re spending tithing on investment/business expenses in order to grow church assets. That’s what you’re supposed to do with your “talents” — grow them. From a practical perspective, I don’t see any difference between church income from investment or church income from tithing. I know others do, and I’m sure accounting does, so I’m sure that “tithing” wasn’t used in City Creek, but from my perspective the difference is meaningless.
My secret for paying tithing: I convert my annual income into Venezuelan bolívar, then at the end of the year, pay tithing on that amount. Since the inflation rate on Bolivar is about 300,000 percent annually, the Bolivar I give really doesn’t cost me that much, and I am more than happy to let the church use it as it pleases.
Anyone guessing with me that there will be a big emphasis on tithe paying at general conference? I’ve impoverished my children to pay tithes all my life, and now I see retirement in the future my pension will be meagre. There are no resources in my family, only sickness. My faith wears thin and thinner. it seems to me important to air this issue unless the church is about to embark on massive mobilisation to relieve the suffering that is on the horizon post covid and thus fulfil the mission that was much lauded in the 80s of uplifting the poor. Time to giveback.
@wayfarer I’ve wondered the same thing. Oh, to be a fly on the wall and know what % of people who paid in 2019 didn’t pay in 2020. But I don’t know how they give that kind of talk with a straight face. I couldn’t.
Elisa, No, I am not being sarcastic — I’m being honest. I am glad that the Church has a reserve fund and that they were able to bring all the missionaries home without a delay for a fund-raising effort. My son was on one of those chartered planes. Nowhere have I opined on the size of the fund, so I do not understand your sharpness.
wayfarer, you sound a lot like my parents. I’m sorry your family has suffered. I find myself a better person for having associated with people like you through my years and I always appreciate reading your perspectives.
Your experience and those of many good people like you causes me to wish the church would alter its tithing policy to affirm the right of parents to prioritize the well-being of their families above their financial contributions to the church.
In the meantime I hope we can take hold of our decisions about how we pay tithing. I believe that a loving God would see payments you make toward the healthcare and well-being of sick family members to be a full and compete tithe. And I would hope that the church would open its resources more generously to faithful members who suffer.
My best to you–know that strangers are rooting for you from afar as you go through difficult times. I hope that some happy times are in the mix as well.
The ginormous rainy day fund is not something that has impacted my view on tithing. Tithing for me is something between me and God. However, I get why others have qualms with tithing and how the Church spends the money it receives from members.
I’m more in the same boat as ji. I see the millions the Church spent in immediately getting missionaries home as a worthy use for the rainy day fund. I also see the usefulness in having a fund when your primary growth is centered in developing countries, and you will likely not be getting as much tithing per member in the future.
As for the Huntsman lawsuit, it feels like a publicity stunt designed to get the Church to disclose more details of its finances. Like similar lawsuits in the past, I don’t think it’ll get very far.
ji, you may have to come up with a phrase other than “reserve fund” to describe accounts with north of $125 billion dollars. They could pull from that and fly every missionary around the world (65,000 missionaries x 5,000 per ticket = 325,000,000) and still have 124 billion, 675 million dollars. That’s why so many thing the size of the accumulated “reserve fund” is grotesque. The church could practically give every member their own mini temple and still have money left over.
In our rural Utah stake, tithing payments in 2020 were up about 10% from the previous year, and fast offering contributions were up even more than that. More of the fast offerings were used to help those impacted in our stake than in previous years (excess fast offerings go to the Church every month), I assume due to COVID-related issues. So at least in our area, it doesn’t seem that the public revelation of the large “rainy day fund” made a big difference in the way people donated tithing and fast offerings. I think there was a real feeling in our stakes and wards of trying to help those impacted by the pandemic. in 2020. I saw a lot of very generous acts by kind people that gave me hope in a dark time.
@Faith Over Fear, I just think it’s sad if people thought tithing would go towards Covid relief. I think people are misled into thinking that. Fast offerings, yes, those go towards relief and I’m a big fan.
@Ji, I’m glad your kid made it home. Didn’t mean to attack. Just genuinely confused how getting missionaries home = needing a reserve of $125B. I really think we don’t understand the magnitude of that number like @jaredsbrother pointed out.
The Church has never has made a official explanation . At least they can give us an explanation regarding why they have so much money and what they are going to do with it. I think that not giving us an explanation is very disrespectful . Showing that we are not worth an explanation. But us as members are use to being disrespected, especially if you are Women.
Personally, I’m a little on the fence about this stuff. I simultaneously hold conflicting views:
1) I’m pleased for the Church that through its wise management, it is now not only solvent, but sheesh, rolling in it to the point of not knowing what to do with it.
2) I agree that there’s a bit of Sam Walton syndrome going on. On the whole, Church leaders aren’t living in opulence. They seem to be living at about the standard they did when they were in real jobs.
3) Tithing is, without question, a regressive tax. It’s much harder on the poor than the rich. As such, it’s hard for me to see it as any kind of great equalizer, and for the poor to donate to the Uber Rich Organization doesn’t feel right.
4) It is utterly shocking and gross to me that the Church spent funds to oppose LGBT rights (e.g. the Prop 8 fight). I grew up believing in the separation of Church & state, and believing the Church’s claims to be apolitical (that it has since changed). I would never have donated a dime toward such a cause knowingly.
5) Transparency is always good. Sunshine and light are the best disinfectants (although not a great remedy for Covid despite what Trump said). Maybe if the Church were forced to be more transparent, they would also be better with their funds. (Hawkins’ statement sounds like weasel words to me–I agree with Dave B.)
6) It feels wrong to me for the Church to excommunicate someone while retaining their tithes.
7) The pay-to-play role that the temple fills is also deeply troubling, the older I get.
8) I find the idea of detachment that tithing creates (that it’s not MY money, that I should give it away freely) to be a valuable spiritual practice.
9) I’m not convinced that the Church is trustworthy with these funds on the basis of #3, 4, 6 and 7. There are probably better places to donate.
10) I seriously doubt that with a 6-3 conservative bench, we’ll ever see anyone hold Churches accountable for anything in my lifetime. Given that, I wonder if that will actually reduce the influence of Churches in society as the public loses trust in them as benevolent institutions. A more liberal bench would keep them from acting on their worst impulses, IMO.
JI, government lawyer here. If the Mormon Church had not brought your son home the USG would have. We worked around the clock to repatriate Americans who wanted to come home at the beginning of the Pandemic. A little prophetic foresight bringing the missionaries home earlier would have left more resources for others at crunch time.
We also saw requests from the Church to bend rules to get more people out faster. Seems for some flights, the Church was more interested in getting missionaries out of countries than ensuring crew rest for the pilots operating the flights. The requests were denied. The missionaries still made their way home safely.
I am glad your son made it home safely and all the missionaries who needed to come home quickly were accommodated but that was going to happen with or without the Church or the Ensign Peak fund, at least for US citizens. Whether or not the Ensign Peak monies were used to grease the palms of foreign government officials to help our missionaries get home, I don’t know. If they were, it was money well spent, IMO.
My thoughts:
1: Current leadership didn’t rise to the top with knowledge of this massive amount of money. There will be slime balls out there who this amount of money attracts. The spirit of discernment is, well, nonexistent, so how long before one of the slime balls gets promoted to the top and private jets for everyone, second mansions for everyone etc.?.? Joel Osteen Or Rick Warren comes to mind
2: I do think there is a sentiment that only white American males know how to deal with this amount of money. I know Soares got put in, but this has to be a consideration when they pick an apostle knowing that one day that individual could control the purse strings.
3: I would prefer more hospitals and universities, but temples seem to be the preference. It is a lot easier to do work for dead people. You don’t have to form a relationship, they can’t disappoint you, hell they can’t even turn you down.
4: This has not affected my willingness to pay tithing. Long ago we started sending out money directly to Salt Lake because of a loud mouth clerk who was telling everyone in the ward what everyone makes. It is not tied to my membership and no one can see what we pay. I also don’t have any fear that I am going to burn in hell or lose my job if I don’t pay a full tithe. I think it makes me a better person to sacrifice and I still have a lot of love and devotion to the church so my wife and I pay what we think is fair.
5: This lawsuit will not go anywhere. It is bad publicity for the church and it may cause them to be more transparent so that is a good thing that can come of it. He is not getting a dime back.
Everything regarding my approach to this issue is predicated upon understanding how much the Church actually donates to charitable/humanitarian causes. It’s hard to know without full transparency, but from everything I can tell, the amount donated to these causes is a drop in the bucket compared to the $100B. The Church is *justified* in holding onto tithing money, but fastidiously differentiating between tithing and fast offerings in the face of global problems (knowing full well that many members only pay tithing and that tithing alone answers the temple recommend question) seems, at best, excessively legalistic. I wouldn’t accuse anyone of nefarious intent, but intent isn’t all that matters, and until there’s evidence to suggest that the Church is devoting more than truly meager pittances toward humanitarian/charitable causes, I will refrain from paying tithing.
@Angela C re: retaining excommunicated members’ tithes…
I can’t stop thinking about the ramifications of such a scenario. In a world where the church refunded tithing dollars upon excommunication, what shenanigans might disaffected members get up to in order to make a dramatic exit? Why go quietly out the door when you can get paid to do it in style? It’d be like trying to get yourself fired for the severance pay.
As a disaffected member who hasn’t removed his records, this really gets the wheels turning.
Hawk girl- I also have mental problems with the pay to play concept in temple worship, and it has gotten worse as I have gotten older.
The final authority for how Church money is spent rests with the Council on the Disposition of the Tithes, a body consisting of the FP, the Q12 and the Presiding Bishopric. Not one woman in that group, despite the fact that women pay tithing as well. The Church has been making efforts in recent years to try to bring women’s voices to the table in more of the decision-making bodies. Women can even serve as stake auditors now. But it’s clear where they draw that hard line, and it doesn’t look like the men will be sharing control of the checkbook anytime soon.
If the Church decided to become more transparent and publish an annual budget, I think the impact on tithing receipts would be minimal at worst. The most faithful tithe-paying members wouldn’t care about it and keep on paying. Just like the vast majority of American taxpayers who have no clue about the federal budget (and no desire to understand it at all), but still pay taxes, vote and enjoy all the benefits of citizenship.
Tithes and offerings are a good way to prepare to live the law of consecration. Learning to be honest with the Lord and understanding that everything really belongs to Him is a good lesson to learn and good preparation. I’m responsible for my actions, not the actions of the leaders of the church. If they’re not using the church’s funds properly, then they’ll have to answer for it. If I don’t pay tithes and offerings, I’ll have to answer for it.
@bwbarnett where would you draw the line? If leaders were using tithing money for immoral causes, would you still say “they’ll have to answer for that, not me”? Wouldn’t you have to answer for irresponsibly using your resources if you knowingly continue to give when the money is being used for unrighteous things?
I’m not saying that’s happening. I’m just saying at some point we need to take personal responsibility for how we steward our resources and live our lives instead of outsourcing that responsibility to other people (leaders).
@Elisa I don’t think tithing has ever been about outsourcing my responsibility. It is my responsibility to pay tithes and offerings. It is their responsibility to use those sacred funds wisely. There’s no outsourcing there. My stewardship as it relates to tithing is to pay it, period. My stewardship does not include being part of the committee that determines how and where it is spent. That is someone else’s stewardship. I’m responsible for the other 90% of my monies. How those monies are spent is up to me and are part of my stewardship.
As for your drawing the line, I have a hard time with that. Many people here have apparently already drawn that line. They decided not to pay tithing for one or more reasons – the church doesn’t need it, the church spends it poorly, the church doesn’t spend it how I want them to, there are no women on the Council of the Disposition of Tithes, etc., etc. One problem with drawing lines is that we are generally poor line drawers, especially as it relates to placing conditions on our obedience to the Lord’s commandments. I think it’s best to let the Lord draw the lines.
Bwbarnett –
I don’t believe that paying tithing to the church has much to do with being honest with the Lord. The fact that the church hordes its mountain of money, to me, is proof of this.
Taking care of the poor, the needy, and the disenfranchised has everything to do with the Lord and living the law of consecration and demonstrates our honest desire to serve Him through giving to and serving others. These offerings of love can be done better without involving a church that has shown that its love of money is greater than its love for those who need help the most.
In short, I think it’s misguided to believe that paying tithing to an organization is what He wants. It’s easier for us, though, as it requires less thought and effort. Giving our tithes and offerings to the church is definitely what the church wants, but the church and the Lord are not one and the same.
@BWBarnett I suspect that for many people who have drawn the line, they believe God has led them to that. They just have a very different view than you do about how we learn God’s will for us that is much less deferential to other humans in positions of authority. Both approaches are hazardous, just in different ways. But that’s a difference in worldview re Church leadership that won’t be resolved here as we’ve seen on other threads :-).
@TC says: “It’s easier for us, though, as it requires less thought and effort.”
I may be wrong, but I think you’re implying that some like you still “pay tithing”, but just not to the church. And that taking upon yourself that responsibility requires more thought and effort. You’re probably correct there, but I’m not sure that it makes my tithing donation any less in God’s eyes than yours?? It’s definitely commendable to give to people and organizations that help the poor and the needy, so if people choose not to pay tithing to the church, doing it themselves is a great alternative.
Angela’s post expressed most of the views that I have, but with some differences. With the conference talk of, “if you don’t have enough money to pay for food for your kids, pay your tithing first” ringing in my ears, I stopped paying tithing in 2020 (at least on my ‘half” of my salary) when I found out about the enormous fund. I found it very refreshing to take that money and donate it to several causes. If now wasn’t I time to use at least a bit of that money I don’t understand when they might. I imagine (hope) there isn’t a time in my lifetime that would be more need. Yes – I am aware of the donations made and that is a good thing, but I think there was much more that could have been done to help in many possible ways (and they even could have built up some real goodwill).
Just as the church seems to have a persecution complex, it has some real financial insecurities – partially rational and some more emotional. I think some of the current top leaders knew that in their lifetime the church was financially strapped and they never want to have the church in that position. Kind of like my grandmother that lived through the depression and until she died she removed the lightbulb from the fridge to save money – even though she had more than enough to live on. I think those insecurities have made them to focus too much on $ in the bank.
And reading some of the comments did bring up an issue that hits me more personally. I will clarify that the church did NOT bring home all missionaries from the US back home during the pandemic – even when parents requested it. This included some of the countries that were of the opinion of “just let herd immunity fix the issue”.
There is at present a gofundme for a brother in my ward who had a terrible accident at work. How quickly it could be met if we were just allowed to divert our tithing…
We all give money to causes that we like because those causes provide us some benefit, even if a bit of joy. That’s the way it should be. (The IRS even allows us a deduction for it.) That’s how it starts with tithing. Then you realize how churches enforce it. They tie it to religious privileges like the Mormons do with their temples and sacrament and then they enforce it with guilt. Or they enforce it with the illusion of prosperity like the televangelists. This spiritual enforcement takes the joy out of giving, especially when one learns that either the church has stockpiled the money and provides no charity or its leaders use it to enrich themselves. Money and churches are an unsavory combination. If anything, Huntsman’s suit highlights that.
Elisa…..My husband was in a meeting years ago in a small outlying Utah area where fast offerings were being discussed, and the financial clerk let it slip that our stake was proud that 70% of our fast offerings were not being used and were sent to the church for the general fund.
I was amazed one morning driving by post office to see an extremely long line of cars with the food bank truck in front.
I think the high minded goals of fast offerings have been abandoned for quick fund profits.
Before I donate money to an organization I do some research using sites like Charity Navigator to determine if they are fulfilling their stated mission using those donations.
Some time ago Boston University published a study looking at what religious organizations do with donations and found that not much of the money is used to help the poor and needy. Of course, many denominations, unlike the LDS church, have paid clergy so tithing funds would go to that.
(However I do wonder what, if any, funding goes to our leaders)?
It seems, at a minimum, tithing should be more progressive. I’ve often wondered how Bishops can feel good about taking 10% of one’s earnings from struggling families?
Bwbarnett,
“One problem with drawing lines is that we are generally poor line drawers, especially as it relates to placing conditions on our obedience to the Lord’s commandments.”
So when the leaders speak the thinking is done? And even if the leaders aren’t actually speaking for God, we should just assume they are and follow them blindly, treat them as infallible in word and deed? I have a problem with this way of thinking.
I remember hearing of a GA speaking to a group of SP’s in Brazil some years ago. He chastised them for not using enough fast offering funds to take care of their members. It made me think that perhaps these leaders had been trained incorrectly at some point with regards to the use of fast offerings. I think the general idea that the GA was trying to get across was, “the church has the funds to take care of its members. USE THEM!” In my limited experience, I have noticed that bishops and stake presidents walk a fine line when it comes to using fast offering funds. They have “help the poor and needy” on one hand, and “teaching people how to be self-sufficient” on the other. How long do you continue using fast offerings to pay for someone’s utilities, groceries, mortgage who is capable of working? I don’t envy them their stewardship.
Hi @John W,
If “the leaders aren’t actually speaking for God”, then don’t follow them. If they are actually speaking for God, then follow them. That would be my advice. The next question might then be, “Well how do I know if they are speaking for God or not?” THAT’S the question we all need an answer to. And it is a tough one, especially considering the fact that many claim to have received the answer and the answers differ.
bwbarnett: I think the issue with limiting intra-ward help to fast offering funds is that they are locally obtained. What happens as a result is that local leaders are making decisions in Bountiful about how many months to pay for someone’s cable bill and mortgage on their mansion while they are out of work, and in Guatemala, they can’t cover everyone’s groceries. The gap exists between these local problems and the global relief actions the Church does. In essence, tithing is the current law of consecration, but in practice, you’re only in it with your near neighbors, and if you’re all poor, sorry Charlie.
@Angela C: The members in Guatemala have access to the fast offerings paid by the members in Bountiful. Unused fast offerings in a ward are given to the stake. Unused fast offerings in a stake are given to church HQ. If a ward doesn’t collect enough fast offerings to cover their need, they request funds from the stake. If a stake does not collect enough funds to cover their needs, they request funds from church HQ.
bwbarnett: I have yet to be in a ward council that didn’t have more requests than funds, but maybe that’s just me. I’m not saying all funds were used, but there were a lot more requests, and I’ve only lived in upper middle class areas. Sometimes members donated directly to help individuals to make up the difference.
bsbarnett, I think there is room for something in between, is there not? The reality is that a good number of members are middle-pathers and don’t believe everything or believe that the leaders are speaking for God all the time. Even with tithing. What is wrong with a member claiming they pay tithing because they spend the money on the charities of their choice. God’s going to disapprove of that? Not the God I believe in, nor the one that many middle-path Mormons believe in. The church literally does not need the money. It can continue to exist on just the returns on its investments. Since the disclosure that it has $100 billion (just last year), the church made $6 billion in returns on its investments, which is well above the threshold for self-funding.
Furthermore on tithing, there is a lot of grey area and room for personal interpretation about how much you should pay. Rock Waterman did an excellent write-up on his blog entitled, “Are We Paying Too Much Tithing” back in 2012, which can be accessed with a simple google search.
There is no need to find justifications to question a member’s worthiness or adherence to morality because they see things differently. You have a very black-and-white framework through which you view the church.
Sorry, bwbarnett. bsbarnett was a typo, not an insult.
@John W: Haha, bsbarnett! I got a good chuckle out of that one 😉
I do tend to see things as black and white a lot of the time, you are correct on that one. And I’m going to leave the questions of members’ worthiness to God and to those whose stewardship it is to determine that. I suspect that many of my comments come off kind of preachy and/or judgmental, sorry about that. I don’t think my way is the only way. I just like to throw my opinions out in the mix here too for consideration. There are lots of avenues for doing good. There are lots of people with lots of worldviews, and they can all do good things with God’s approval.
Whether the church needs my tithing or not, I need the Lord to know that I’m choosing to pay it. To be honest, I don’t know if choosing to pay 10% of my interest annually to other non-church organizations fulfills God’s commandment to pay tithing. Maybe it does?? I suppose we could go through a few scriptures to help determine that, but we might come to different conclusions. As has been mentioned above though, it would limit one’s ability to attend the temple.
@Chet – Sorry to hear about the brother in your ward who suffered a terrible accident. What is the gofundme info?
The phrase “sacred funds” comes up lot in conversations about tithing; the Church itself uses it extensively in the Handbook, particularly in the chapters dealing with ward and stake finances. I think it’s an oxymoron. Money is an earthly, manmade concept, as are the things it represents (scarcity, governments, economies of finite resources, etc.). I believe the Kingdom of God is far too vast and infinite for Him to be concerned about whether or not I give money to His earthly Church organization, and how much. I don’t think His love is conditional upon it (or anything really) and I doubt He, as a loving benevolent Father, has the desire jeopardize anyone’s salvation over it. I don’t believe God is that shallow or that vain that He judges our love for Him in dollars and cents. What we will be judged on, though, is how well we learned to love our earthly neighbors during our mortality. I can use my own judgment and reasoning to decide how to share of my limited substance for the benefit of my brothers and sisters here on earth, and do so of my own free will and in my own way rather than by external coercion or threats of eternal damnation. To me, paying tithing directly to the Church seems awfully limiting and like a loss of my agency (in deciding how the money is used). This talk of “sacred funds” and “the Lord’s money” feels sacrilegious.
The requirement to pay a full tithe to hold a temple recommend is also a manmade bar to entry with plenty of room for interpretation on both sides of the interview desk.
BW, requests for local relief go to SLC. Because that really isn.t helping me in the face of world poverty v church slush fund.
I personally love the principal that all belongs to the Lord, and have lived by it and taught it to my kids with genuine delight. But then I had no idea I was creating a massive nest egg for a rainy day that never rains hard enough.
Now is the time to roll out church welfare hard, whilst teaching self reliance, and if we have to hire some qualified community workers to help us, so much the better.
The “pay to play”– I’ve never been comfortable with linking money to being able to go to the temple. Money shouldn’t be a factor. It reminds me of when I was Catholic, buying mass cards to have the priest say our loved ones name in mass for whatever number of Sundays you paid for. And I’ve never heard that the deceased people who receive their ordinances pay tithing.
Isn’t a major blessing of the hereafter leaving the cares of this life and not having to think about money?
Also no one in the ward should know how much someone makes and pays. I’d like to see discussion on how to keep our tithing and donations private without at least the local ward knowing, if not church headquarters.
Ask and ye shall receive. I just got a message in my inbox today from the Church thanking members for contributions and outlining some of the worldwide initiatives these funds helped, specifically during 2020:
-Improving food security in 18 countries
-Improving clean water in 23 countries
-International community projects in 99 countries
-Emergency / disaster relief response in 158 countries
-Immunization campaigns (10 in 2020)
-Maternal & newborn care in 9 countries
-Refugee response in 50 countries
-Vision care in 17 countries
-Wheelchairs in 16 countries
-Community projects in US/Canada (53 states & provinces)
It’s a helpful message, and it also has a link to the full report which is literally not so much a report as a brochure / slick with lots of photos and some stories, but it’s also kind of like what I’ve seen from some other charitable groups. (The key difference is that those groups are subject to external comparisons of their record keeping that results in rankings as to how effective they are and reveals what % of charitable donations goes to recipients vs. overhead; the Church is not transparent in this same way, but this is still better than anything I’ve seen before). This seems like perhaps the message is getting through that the membership wants to know what their giving is enabling, and at least for a LOT of us, we don’t want it going for anti-LGBT legislation or phone-banking or literally one red cent of it going to Kirton-McConkie (that’s my view anyway).
Having said that, the skeptical voice in the back of my head still whispers: 1) how much of this is just through the Just Serve website (which is a great endeavor, but really just aggregates service projects for anyone, Mormon or not, who wants to do them–the site isn’t a high cost endeavor, although it’s a great one), and 2) the brochure details the number of countries that we’ve helped over a longer time first, downplaying the smaller 2020 only number which makes it easy for a cursory reader to assume the higher number applies to 2020, which it doesn’t. That feels fudgy to me. These are good numbers. Why does the person putting together this brochure (and all who approved it) feel the need to make it look better than it is? It feel a little yucky.
Angela C, I got that same email. It came off as damage control seeing as how the church and Ensign Peak are in the news again over investments in Gamestop and $6 billion in gains in 2020 thus reminding people in the US, many of whom are in precarious financial situations because of the pandemic, that the church is filthy rich. Church leaders wanted to appear to the wider membership as a deeply charitable giver. I don’t doubt that the church gives charitably. I just believe that it could and should do far more than it is doing and has done.
Interesting that Latter-day Saint Charities led over 3,600 humanitarian projects in 160 countries and territories last year.
And too bad we don’t have more nuts and bolts details.
I think Angela hits the matter right on the head, and better than I cloud.
Too bad it wasn’t more.
A good start to accountability though, and I doubt we would have this without recent negative publicity. I’m glad to see it, but I’m assuming this is not relating to tithing funds Can anyone enlighten me?
Great post. A couple of thoughts:
1. I think part of the problem is that many top leaders are old enough to remember when the Church was basically insolvent. That memory is haunting to them, and skews responsible decision making.
2. My understanding is that even the 12 don’t know the full details. When Elder Packer was a heartbeat away from the top seat and he wanted to understand the details, the 1P blocked him. They understand how sensitive that big a pile of money is.
3. I don’t think they have the first clue what to do with the money, other than just keep investing for a “rainy day.”
4. I haven’t kept records, but I would guess I’ve paid at least $350,000 in tithing over the course of my life. Aye carumba!
I too have heard the anecdote about Boyd Packer being denied information about the 100-plus billion dollar fund. Good grief!
I think Kevin Barney’s surmise that top leaders really don’t know what to do with the money is correct. I think he is also correct that our leaders, being old, can remember the Church’s financial crisis of the late 1950s and early 1960s and it haunts them, and skews their thinking in dealing with the question of, “When does having enough become hoarding?” Wallace Stegner once remarked that Mormons suffered, both as individuals and as a Church, from a hair-trigger martyr’s complex, and I think this can cause an extreme desire to make sure the Church never has to go again to Eastern banks and ask for loans to get us through financial hard times. But the stockpiling of money makes me think irreverently that some Church members believe in having a year’s supply of food and a two-year’s supply of ammunition, in this case financial ammunition, in this case a many-years’ supply of ammunition.
I think Church leaders are aware that the optics of this fiasco are terrible (hence the e-mail that Angela C. referred to, which I also got), but the first impulse of management is to double down and continue on as before, rather than change. There is also an inevitable default, not exclusive to the Church, to put the needs of the organization first, before the needs of the people that the organization was established to serve:
At the risk of offending some among us, I will also assert, as a 69 year-old, that many people, as they get older, get fearful of running out of savings, and start to hoard. This happened with my own parents, and I think there is some of this mindset among Church leaders.
I am glad that the Church is financially secure, but as I am reading again through the NT, I cannot help but think that the Primitive Church was better off spiritually, even though it was an economic mess.
Hopefully our leaders can show some boldness in finding Christlike ways to intelligently use this money, beside building more temples. But I fear that mindsets will be hard to change.
Hawkgrrrl: my family, friends, and I do a small amount of foreign assistance. It feeds my need to travel. Being a rather accomplished spin doctor, I can make our effort look like the Bill and Melissa Gates Foundation or alternatively, really nothing at all (just a drop in the bucket so to speak). I get the distinct impression that the Church is spin doctoring in their recent email. They are putting everything in an exaggerated light. Without specifics though, we will never know. Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate the Church’s efforts. But they need to do more, much more.
At a Sunstone Conference years ago, a representative from the Church humanitarian services made a presentation. He suggested that all of the money contributed was used for projects, no overhead. That comment was dismissed my some in attendance. The overhead had to come from somewhere. Perhaps from tithing? He further encouraged those attending to give to humanitarian services. I suggested that maybe members could allocate some of their tithing money to humanitarian projects. This idea didn’t go over well with the presenter. The Church leadership anticipating this possible problem, now reserves the right to move your contributions anywhere they like. So another suggestion might be to contribute part of your tithing money to non-Church humanitarian groups.
Taiwan, I agree that it would be nice if the Church reallocated some of its construction activities (ie Temples) to humanitarian efforts. Let’s prioritize the living over the dead.
I was chatting to my brother in law (he’s the stake president) about this hoarded money. He said we do important things like build temples!
I retorted with Let the dead bury their dead: but go and bring the kingdom of God.
We both had a wry smile.
Christ is reported to have said, “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”. I read a very practical, hands on, real world reality in this great parable.
Am I following Christ’s teachings if I pay tithing to the church when I know that only a tiny fraction will be used to help the least of these? Is the church doing this *to* Christ? Both in its investments, and its focus on the dead?
For me, feeding my family, paying my mortgage, providing healthcare (including mental healthcare), education, job training, helping my neighbors, being involved in my community, being an informed voter, saving for retirement, etc., all contribute to building up a worthwhile kingdom of God on earth.
Personally, I think that paying tithing to the LDS Church (in this day and age) is nothing more than the “paying of an indulgence” to get into the Celestial Kingdom. After all, it’s eternal life and exaltation which “the Church” withholds as a result of non-tithe payment. They clearly don’t need the money….and they equally as clearly…have become nothing more than a Real Estate and Investment Brokerage. Christ’s “one and only true church” – not so much.