Whistleblower allegations against LDS Church
- Thread starter Zombie
- Start date
zyzz
Well-Known Member
checkbookdoc
Well-Known Member
Sounds like the whistleblower, David Nielsen, may get A LOT of money (IRS gives up to 30% of collected taxes to whistleblowers). If the Church lost tax exempt status it would be very significant, but it doesn't seem like much of a moral scandal.
Zombie
Well-Known Member
I guess that depends on your perspective. One of my least favorite things about organized religion is their proclivity to amass obscene amounts of wealth. To most believers its probably not a big deal, but this sort of thing has always irked me.
checkbookdoc
Well-Known Member
I personally don't get bothered by the amassing of wealth, but how it gets spent can really upset me. I would be upset if the extra offerings had been spent frivolously every year rather than set aside for future expenditures. It would be sad if a church that teaches financial self reliance didn't have a rainy day fund. Again, I don't really see much of a scandal here (nor care much if others do).
I think the issue is that you can choose to amass wealth rather than undertake charitable endeavors - but you're required to pay taxes if you take the "amass wealth" path.
How sure are your about what the line is between gaining wealth and normal religious tax exempt spending? Is the line 50%?
Not a tax attorney. I'm not even positive I understand your question (50% of what?).
My read of the Washington post article was that virtually no charitable activity occurred from funds directed to Ensign capital. If true, that would seem to fall cleanly on the "merely amassing wealth" side rather than into some mixed use gray area.
Zombie
Well-Known Member
If we're to take the whistleblower's claims at face value, he's saying they amassed a 100 Billion dollar fortune, funded in part by church donations, and didn't disburse any of those funds towards charity.
I understand the need for a rainy day fund, but even with a very modest return on investment that account would easily continue to grow without any additional funding and still be able to donate many many times more than they currently do.
From a moral point of view, everyone can form their own opinions on it. I personally find it a bit ridiculous that a church needs a hundred billion dollars in a rainy day fund. It's hard to find a biblical justification for that sort of thing, and it kind of reminds me of some of the criticisms I heard of the Catholic Church back when I was a Mormon.
From a legal standpoint it certainly appears as though there was impropriety in terms of using a nonprofit entity to fund and prop up church businesses.
Handlogten's Heros
Well-Known Member
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
2025 Prediction Contest Winner
This is interesting to me... I'm not sure what is legal/illegal or moral here. I think the church is certainly prudent with the funds they are trusted with, but not sure if building an asset base is immoral here or if the funds need to be disbursed to maintain non-profit status. Certainly an interesting one to keep an eye on.
It depends on what purpose you believe that a church's funds should be used for, on an individual level (I cannot speak as to a legal one). It has astounded me that the church will brag that they have paid $2.2 billion on charity in the past 25 years, but this is only a very, very small percentage of the amount of wealth that the church has accumulated. If you are fine with giving 10%+ of your hard-earned money to a church that then hoards the money to make even more money, then you are getting what you want. If you would prefer that the money you give is used in a large degree for church expenses and charity, then you are being ripped off. It doesn't strike me as following the teachings of Christ, but little about Christian church organization seems to these days.