Whistleblower allegations against LDS Church

[Deleted member 365]

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.

Just to compare, the state of Utah maintains a Rainy Day fund. In 2018, it put $65 million of its state budget surplus into the RD fund, creating a total balance of $438 million dollars. In all my years of following the legislature, I've never seen it exceed about $550 million...

https://budget.utah.gov/2018/10/17/budgetsurplus/

In the last legislative session, the total budget was at $19 billion dollars, with the two biggest expenditures being K-12 education at $5.5 billion and $4.6 billion towards health care.
https://www.ksl.com/article/46478642/breaking-down-the-state-budget-where-is-utahs-money-going

So it's pretty difficult to contemplate why a church based in Utah needing a rainy day fund 228 times larger than that of the entire state of Utah. interesting.

 

[colton]

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.

If that's what happened. But that's a very big If. The article provided little to no evidence.

 

[Zombie]

If that's what happened. But that's a very big If. The article provided little to no evidence.

For sure, that's why I started the post with that qualifier.

 

[babe]

I think the idea that assets are resaved for whn Jesus is already here is a gloss.....

Most concerns I've ever heard in Church financial circles refer, rather, to the anticipated time of trouble before Jesus arrives. Thus it is in reality, in the minds of Church members and leaders alike, a provision for a time of need. I think that, if all hell broke loose, the LDS would "be there" with whatever help they could muster.

The LDS contributors consider it in that light, and the funds are not being just squandered, is solid justification for the tax exemption.

 

[colton]

For sure, that's why I started the post with that qualifier.

Fwiw it was your last paragraph that I was mainly referring to, where your "if" qualifier wasn't as obvious.

Fwiw I suspect the church does have a very large rainy day fund, or whatever you want to call it. Maybe not as large as this guy claims, but large enough that many people will find it objectionable. But I don't find it objectionable. And I suspect that the claim of tax violations by using donations to prop up City Creek are bogus, and that none of the people who jumped on the church about that in response to the WaPo story will apologize. But we'll see.

 

[checkbookdoc]

It is interesting to see that the church sets aside about 14% of all tithing donations. The church statement said, "Over many years, a portion is methodically safeguarded through wise financial management and the building of a prudent reserve for the future." This makes it sound like the 14% was specifically targeted rather than just what is left over after expenditures.

The claim of $100 billion seems to be based on only the Ensign fund and there are clearly other holdings/investments as well. For example, this doesn't include any of the fast offering funds, church property holdings, BYU endowment, or for profit church investments. I would not be surprised to know that the church has over $200 Billion in assets (although many of these produce costs not profit, such as church buildings).

 

[JazzGal]

Fwiw it was your last paragraph that I was mainly referring to, where your "if" qualifier wasn't as obvious.

Fwiw I suspect the church does have a very large rainy day fund, or whatever you want to call it. Maybe not as large as this guy claims, but large enough that many people will find it objectionable. But I don't find it objectionable. And I suspect that the claim of tax violations by using donations to prop up City Creek are bogus, and that none of the people who jumped on the church about that in response to the WaPo story will apologize. But we'll see.

Similar to Trump's situation, transparency would go a long way. Once I left the LDS church and realized that other churches actually tell you what they are doing with your money instead of making you take it on faith that it is being used how you would expect, it seemed reasonable to assume they have something to hide for whatever reason.

I also was disappointed to discover that other churches use a much greater percentage of their money for charity, even with a paid clergy. I had expected something different when my own money was a part of it.

I don't expect that they will find a lot to pin onto the church as I doubt they are dumb enough to have blatantly broken the law, but I am sure they have taken advantage of every loophole possible. I do not expect that the GAs are stashing money in offshore accounts for their private use or any other nefarious reasons. Their secrecy is likely based on other reasoning than legality.

This is by far not my biggest issue with religion.

Sent from my moto z3 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Hotdog]

It is interesting to see that the church sets aside about 14% of all tithing donations. The church statement said, "Over many years, a portion is methodically safeguarded through wise financial management and the building of a prudent reserve for the future." This makes it sound like the 14% was specifically targeted rather than just what is left over after expenditures.

The claim of $100 billion seems to be based on only the Ensign fund and there are clearly other holdings/investments as well. For example, this doesn't include any of the fast offering funds, church property holdings, BYU endowment, or for profit church investments. I would not be surprised to know that the church has over $200 Billion in assets (although many of these produce costs not profit, such as church buildings).

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.

If that's what happened. But that's a very big If. The article provided little to no evidence.

Fwiw it was your last paragraph that I was mainly referring to, where your "if" qualifier wasn't as obvious.

Fwiw I suspect the church does have a very large rainy day fund, or whatever you want to call it. Maybe not as large as this guy claims, but large enough that many people will find it objectionable. But I don't find it objectionable. And I suspect that the claim of tax violations by using donations to prop up City Creek are bogus, and that none of the people who jumped on the church about that in response to the WaPo story will apologize. But we'll see.

The Chruch is very generous and helps out a lot of families and people. They helped my family many times over the years and we never paid any tithing.

This is a lot of complaining about an organization doing a lot of good in the world. People aren't forced to pay tithing. They volunteer to.

 

[colton]

The Chruch is very generous and helps out a lot of families and people. They helped my family many times over the years and we never paid any tithing.

This is a lot of complaining about an organization doing a lot of good in the world. People aren't forced to pay tithing. They volunteer to.

Thanks for the post. Despite our vast disagreements in the Trump thread, I'm glad we have some common ground here.

 

[MVP]

If the Church lost tax exempt status it would be very significant, .

Churches are tax exempt? Wow.