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
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award 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.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
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.
Last edited:
Political Jazz Fan
Well-Known Member
Church responds to allegations made by former employee in IRS complaint
https://www.deseret.com/opinion/201...ch-whistleblower-says-billions-thank-goodness
“Claims being currently circulated are based on a narrow perspective and limited information. The church complies with all applicable law governing our donations, investments, taxes and reserves. We continue to welcome the opportunity to work with officials to address questions they may have.”
https://www.deseret.com/opinion/201...ch-whistleblower-says-billions-thank-goodness
“Claims being currently circulated are based on a narrow perspective and limited information. The church complies with all applicable law governing our donations, investments, taxes and reserves. We continue to welcome the opportunity to work with officials to address questions they may have.”
If that's what happened. But that's a very big If. The article provided little to no evidence.
Zombie
Well-Known Member
For sure, that's why I started the post with that qualifier.
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.
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.
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
Well-Known Member
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).
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).
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
Last edited: