I few years ago I wrote about the Church’s penchant for keeping things “Secret”. I work in an industry that has legitimate reasons to keep things secret. These involve National Security issues that require secrecy. I go through yearly training to learn which things should be “secret” and which things can be released to the public. One thing that is hammed into us in this training is that we cannot make something secret just because it is embarrassing, or we don’t want the public to know because it would make us look bad. The exact wording from the directive for the reasons you cannot make something SECRET are:
1 Conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error;
Office of the Director of National Intelligence Classification Guide (ODNI CG)
2 Prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency;
3 Restrain competition; or
4 Prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of the national security
Last week the Church made a court filing in which they argued that they should not have to release financial data because it contained “Extremely Sensitive” information. The case is the lawsuit where James Huntsman wants his tithing money back because he says the church used it to build the mall. The Church showed the court documents that they said it demonstrated that tithing was not used for the mall. Those records were sealed. Huntsman wants them unsealed so that everybody can see where the money came from to build the mall in downtown Salt Lake City. The Church claimed that of the sealed documents contain “confidential information that provide undue insight into strategic decisions.”
So what possible reason could the Church have for keeping the financial records of the mall secret? What is so “extremely sensitive” about them? Since these documents have already been giving to the court, there is probably not anything in there that is a direct violation of the law (item #1 above). I think #2 is the most likely reason: “Prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency”.
Now most businesses have reasons to keep things secret when it involves trade secrets or “strategic decisions” (such as the acquisition of another business). Is the LDS church ready to do a leveraged takeover of the Sothern Baptists? Are they planning for a hostel takeover of the Catholic Church? Huntsman’s lawyer summed it up in a court filing: “What we have here is a tax-exempt organization that claims it did not mislead the public as to how it used its tax-exempt funds, and yet is fighting hard to prevent the public from seeing how it actually used those funds.”
What are your thoughts on why the Church is fighting so hard to keep the funding of the mall a secret? What could the “strategic decisions” be that the Church needs to keep secret?
Wheat & Tares 
Yawn.
IMHO, we need to amend our statutes to require all tax exempt organizations to make annual public financial disclosures. That should be the price for not paying taxes.
Roger Clarke, head of Ensign Peak (Wall Street Journal): “So they never wanted to be in a position where people felt like, you know, they shouldn’t make a contribution”.
Could be that they are in fact lying or massaging the truth enough that one could trace tithing money directly to commercial activities.
Could be that there is information that shows they make payments to individuals or companies for bribes on sweetheart business deals.
Could be they are just embarrassed with the glut of money that gets pushed around and received in when literally millions in the world suffer in ways reprehensible to Christ.
Could be the documents would reveal some strategy or future dealings in business that would give an advantage to competition.
Could be just like Roger Clarke said and they don’t want members to realize they don’t need to pay anything, spend gobs of extra money on largely worthless church related activities (let alone 10% of hard-earned money) and the Church would be just fine.
Could be they subject themselves to numerous other lawsuits or investigations by other groups or IRS.
BUT DO YOU KNOW WHAT IT CANNOT BE? That everything is fine, no exposure to anything in the above list, no indiscretions or poor Christian decisions, and that every last widows mite was used as Christ would have done. Because if that were true, they would be so eager to share with the world.
So, until you prove it, I think you are guilty of something. Maybe not huge, maybe it would be disgusting, I don’t know. But I cannot trust it.
I think there are many things that can show you what an individual or organization truly values, but very few that can do it better than what they do with their money.
Everybody kind of understands this, which is why you’d think 50 North Temple would be eager to share if the news was good. My mother (the most TBM person I’ve ever met) maintains the reticence is because the Church doesn’t boast of its many good deeds, but I wonder… it would rock her world if the evidence proved otherwise. This is part of the real trouble, I think.
I also think the corporate culture of the Church is saturated in a many decades-deep belief that it is an unjustly persecuted organization. Institutions can be traumatized just like people can, and just like people can do a lot of damage with unresolved trauma. Isolation and secrecy are the water it swims in, the first, last, and only instinct and the response to any and every question. Well, that, and ostracism and shunning of dissenting voices.
Those are necessary reactions in extreme circumstances, but, in my opinion, serve the Institution poorly today.
I am okay with the church keeping a close hold on financial information.
As mentioned, the information was shared with the court under seal — so the judge saw it, and Huntsman’s attorneys saw it, and maybe Huntsman himself saw it. There is no illegality.
“Huntsman wants them unsealed so that everybody can see where the money came from to build the mall in downtown Salt Lake City.”
Right — nothing to do with the lawsuit.
Very simple, if the church has nothing to hide, they wouldn’t be hiding it.
The presumption in courts is against filing under seal because the public is entitled to know the evidence a court is considering. Usually something has to be a trade secret or something close to that to be filed under seal.
From a legal perspective I don’t think this information is entitled to be filed under seal, most importantly because it is stale. Generally, information that is several years old is not entitled to protection even if it would have been when it was current.
In addition, it’s hard to see how disclosing this info hurts the Church’s interests. “Embarrassment” is not a reason not to disclose info in a court of law. Usually, businesses want to keep financial information confidential so their competitors can’t use it to gain an edge over them. I can’t think of any justification for that in this case, but I’m dying to know who the Church’s competitors are.
@ji, that’s not the standard for filing something under seal. Courts are publicly-funded and part of that is transparency in decision making. So the burden is on the person trying to keep information out of the public view to justify doing so, and it requires an evidentiary showing that the information at issue would harm the competitive interests of the person asking to keep it under seal.
So you may personally think it’s fine for the church to keep this from the public, but that’s not what the law says.
There are BIG secrets, and little secrets. If the Church is fighting so hard so as to not have to disclose some of their financial dealings, you can put a ring around it, that they have some BIG secrets, in the form of cats-in-the-bag, or skeletons-in-the-cupboard, or genies-in-the-bottle that they don’t want to let loose. Why? Most probably because we would discover that we are The Church of Google Investments, or The Church of Facebook Investments, or even the The Church of Let’s prop up some of our failing insurance companies, or The Church of City Creek. I don’t know. Only they do. But i support Mr Huntsman in his endeavours. Just being mischievous, not nasty.
I heard Gina Colvin interview an attorney that had done extensive work for the church in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand and is also very familiar with what his colleagues are doing in Europe.
I he listed the top four areas (in the legal arena) that the church spent the most time and money on. I can only remember three of them:
1 – Protecting their tax exempt status
2 – Fighting sexual assault cases
3 – Religious liberty (i.e. anti-LGBTQ+)
How much goes towards these areas is likely one of the reasons they are so invested in privacy. If you aren’t pushing the envelope on tax-exempt issues you don’t need to spend that much on it. The number of sexual assault cases is probably stunning as well as how much tithing is spent to make them go away. And how much money is spent all over the world to make the LDS definition of the proper family the law of the world would be a PR disaster.
“Extremely sensitive information”—–as discussed regarding finances.
How about other sensitive information?
How many members are really active?
How missionaries are mistreated and the real story of a mormon mission?
Why rush people into baptism?
What is in the little cottonwood canyon church vault?
The true origin of temple ceremony?
Thr origin of Melchezidik priesthood?
Why polygamy sealings continued until 1910?
How much does it cost to build a temple?
Why youth in utah get release seminary time, but others have to go at the ungodly hour of 530 am?
Why the deemphasis of signs of the times?
Why protect sexual predators for the good name of the church?
How much money do GA make on books from deseret book?
Disclose all the details of the Q15 living stipend.
Why Bednar has question time from members, but then changes the questions?
Why are the top paying tithes members placed into the bishopric and SP?
Why did the church buy the $100M Hawaiian hotel?
Why can the church not apologize?
This list could literally go on for hours.
Not only do they love the money, it is the power and prestige.
What is much more sensitive than the information, are people. I was taught people are more important than programs. Once your inner self realizes the church does not care about the individual “sensativities” and is a truly selfish organization, all questions, and doubts are answered. The church is the problem, not “the world.” The only reason many of us stay in the conversation is for family and inter generational mormonism.
Years ago James Huntsman was my home teacher. I wish him well.
Given the general dismal state of Malls in the US, I wonder if some of the secrecy is b/c City Creek Mall is a financial loss on the Church’s books.
Kind of ironic and funny our prophets, seers and revelators make a billion dollar bet/investment on a business model just as it was about to be largely upended by Amazon, changing spending habits and an exodus of typical mall shoppers out of SLC for Utah county and northern counties. Then throw in a Pandemic, also unforeseen at the top. Aesthetically, the Mall looks very nice but I genuinely wonder if it has or is making money for the Church. If it losing money or barely breaking even, that would be further embarrassment for the Church and more reason to keep the reports secret, from the Church’s point of view.
I really don’t understand how the mall was financed with no tithing money at all. Loans? What lender would give 100% financing for such a project? No down payment from the church? The church was brought to near financial ruin in the late 1800s. It rebuilt itself through tithing, did it not? Sure, some of the money from went to finance business ventures that yielded profit. Is the church arguing that the profit from earlier tithing-funded business ventures went to help finance the mall? Well then it would still be indirectly tithing-funded, wouldn’t it be?
I, like Huntsman, would be interested to know how the mall was funded. But without transparency, there are many questions left unanswered. I suspect the church leaders have been a bit misleading on how they use finances. The Prop 8 fiasco reveals as much. I think that is a reason, among many others, that they have declined to be more transparent about how the money is used.
The church has claimed publicly that 1) tithing funds were not used, and 2) that Ensign Peak Advisors is an “integrated auxiliary”, i.e. an integral part of the church so that the fact that EPA does not spend money on charity means that there should not be any problems with its non-profit status. I am guessing that they figured out a way for EPA itself to be an “integrated auxiliary” for IRS purposes and at the same time the money sent to EPA becomes separate enough from the church that it is no longer tithing and would ostensibly be beyond the reach of abuse lawsuits, etc via some kind of parallel non-profit structure. People would be shocked and offended that “tithing” money would become non-tithing money under the control of a separate structure and no longer under control of the church the way other church assets are. So I think that is the strategy they are referring to and hoping does not become public. I don’t know what I am talking about from a legal or corporate structure point of view, but what I am suggesting is consistent with the claims the church has made.
That Huntsman and his attorneys are fighting for transparency after having seen these secret documents catches my attention. If the financial documents were dead boring and non-controversial, Huntsman and his team wouldn’t waste their time/money to fight for it.
If the courts can’t force Church financial transparency, then it’s time for members to take action. Robert K., Jana R., and others pay tithing, but not to the Church. Money talks. If the Church doesn’t want to get serious about a Christian humanitarian mission, then the members should individually.
The Church has a tremendous potential to make the world a better place. It has the financial and human resource to affect change. Instead it piddles around.
I am an advocate for Bountiful Children’s Foundation ( previously known as Liahonia, but the church forced them to change the name)
They provide necessary life sustaining nutrition to infants, mostly to impoverished members of the church. When brought before the Q15 to support and sustain the program, they were told NO!!!. The Q15 were concerned that the families could abuse the system and assistance provided.
I understand some people may abuse the welfare state. Some people may abuse church financial assistance. But a child, a 1-4 year old child, how are they going to abuse nutritional supplements? And if they and their families even did abuse the system, who cares? They are starving and malnourished.
What happened to the 4th mission of the church to assist the poor and needy?
Like most humanitarian work done within the LDS system, it is members giving, extra after mandatory tithing. Light of the world. Fast offerings, etc. With Bountiful the supplements are offered under direction of stake presidents, and relief society leaders. Then the church takes the credit.
Regular members think their tithing dollars go to help people, but it is all in property and bank accounts.
Jesus taught us to help the poor and widowed, not the people sitting on their red thrones.
There are things I spend money on that others, I’m sure, would find ridiculous, but I see definite value in the action. I don’t necessarily always feel the need to defend such actions to others, but I will if they ask. Occasionally you’ll get just a few who couldn’t care less why I do such a thing, won’t bother to listen, and simply ridicule such actions to my face. That gets annoying really fast.
The Church could disclose action A, B, C, D, E . . .Z and face multiple criticisms for each. Or it could not disclose that information and face one criticism (albeit a fairly big one) for not disclosing that information. I think doing the latter probably frees up more resources, notwithstanding the lawsuits.
I also look at the good the Church does that can be seen (which, in my opinion, they’re also fairly quiet about compared to other Churches), and how they divide an conquer. Logically, it makes sense that if there was any way MORE good could be done in circumstances best kept under the radar and with minimal risk, the Church would take advantage of it.
Additionally, there are things I do that I consider apolitical, but that others smack on a political label by default. I’m sure this is even more important for the Church, especially where rival social groups and countries may be involved.
But I’m sure embarrassment is also part of it, as with any organization. I hate to admit it, but I grow more forgiving of institutions as I get older, offering the same forgiveness I would individuals, since that’s exactly what they’re made of. I don’t expect every person I meet to air his or her dirty laundry upon introduction, and maybe not ever. I instead hope to get acquainted with all the good they do now. I still try to maintain an expectation of higher standards for institutions, however, and I’ll fully admit my forgiveness is much slower when it comes to government institutions.
The hypocrisy of the defense “these were not sacred tithing funds” is pretty thick. It’s ALL tithing funds, Brother. That’s how it all started. The Church didn’t win the lottery and then started investing those funds to have their surplus with which to build malls and housing developments.- they were all once upon a time tithing funds. We have certainly all heard from many pulpits, many times “It’s all the Lords money ” when discussing my income. Why not the Church’s income? Read the New Testament and listen to who the Savior condemned and criticized and then try and fit the Church’s financial situation into that model. Do any of us really believe the Savior is behind the lack of financial transparency?
The records shown to the court may have some interesting accounting practices in them. I remember hearing somewhere that the Church doesn’t use GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles), and that’s why the Church audit report that used to be read in Gen Conf referred to ‘internal accounting controls’ or some other title (feel free to correct me). So the accounting might be vulnerable to criticism. With zero financial transparency and no shareholder accountability, the Church can do whatever it wants with its books and financial records.
The IRS can audit Deseret Management Company (that’s the holding company for all the for-profit Church-affiliated companies like Deseret Book and Deseret News and etc) (website at www. deseretmanagement .com), which would presumably also include auditing capital contributions received from the nonprofit arm of the Church. I really don’t know how those would be handled. Perhaps the IRS would insist on knowing the provenance of a capital contribution to the point of requiring the religious side of the organization to show tithing receipts and prove that no tithing went into the capital contribution to the for-profit side of the Church. Perhaps it wouldn’t.
IF the earnings on tithing funds were used for the Mall, the money might go something like this:
Step 1. Tithing paid ($100) online gets deposited into a bank account held by The Corporation of the President of the COJCOLDS (a tax-exempt religious entity) (the COP of COJCOLDS) –>
Step 2. The COP of COJCOLDS sends $100 to Ensign Peak (a tax-exempt integrated auxiliary of the COP of COJCOLDS) –>
Step 3. Ensign Peak invests $100 in the stock market –>
Step 4. Ensign Peak’s investing strategy turns the $100 into $150 (Ensign Peak pays no tax on the gain because its passive investment income earned by an integrated auxiliary of a Church) –>
Step 5. Ensign Peak sends $50 to the COP of COJCOLDS –>
Step 6. COP of COJCOLDS makes a capital contribution of $50 to Deseret Management Company (for-profit entity) (capital contributions are not taxable income to a company) –>
Step 7. DMC makes a capital contribution of $50 to whatever subsidiary is building the Mall –>
Step 8. The subsidiary spends $50 on the Mall.
While that $50 maybe wasn’t “tithing” it also wasn’t taxed at any point because EPA doesn’t pay taxes. This violates the spirit of UBIT (Unrelated Business Income Tax in 26 U.S.C. Section 512), the loophole closed by Congress in 1950 when non-profit Harvard University tried to say its noodle factory was tax-exempt. (Look up “Unrelated Business Income Tax” on Wikipedia for a five-minute version.) Maybe it doesn’t violate the letter of the UBIT law?? I dunno. Someone ask Sam Brunson. I quit practicing tax law more than a decade ago; I’m scraping all this up from old memories.
I’m going to speculate that the “sensitive information” the Church doesn’t want to disclose would provide some sort of reason for the IRS to investigate, which might lead to untangling Church accounting practices, which might lead to a big hairy mess. I mean, what happens if the IRS auditor points to that $50 capital contribution and tells DMC to explain the source of those funds? If the COP of COJCOLDS is using tax-exempt investment proceeds to invest in DMC, which is a for-profit entity, the IRS may have something to say about that, and maybe Congress passes a law specifically aimed at the COP of COJCOLDS the way the UBIT law was aimed at Harvard’s noodle factory. Whether or not the money was tithing, or investment proceeds earned from tithing, none of it was taxed. Then tax-free money may have been sent to a commercial business.
Imagine if the IRS hands the COP of COJCOLDS a capital gains tax bill for all those investment proceeds that got sent to DMC for the Mall ….
The economy of lawyers and the economy of builders make up the “Deep State” of the institution that administers LDS ordinances and manages the LDS tithe. Catholic organized crime accomplishes through unions what LDS organized crime accomplishes by real estate development, multi-level marketing, and lawyers. Gadiantons from Utah to Arizona are made rich by collusion. No reason to apostasize: the corruption of leadership and the institution that hijacks the gospel from the congregation is the central theme of the Book of Mormon.
Money is power, and power corrupts. Absolute power ($100B) corrupts absolutely. Why the Brethren think they’re immune to this age-old dynamic is beyond me. Also worth noting is that we’d likely still have no idea without whistle-blowers disclosing this oligarch-level wealth. Why? The Brethren make a very big deal of the differences between “secret” on the one hand, and “sacred” on the other. Unfortunately when these are conflated at the convenience of the hierarchy, abuse and malfeasance are inevitable. There’s this thing called the Human Condition – and correct me if I’m wrong but we’re all human.