Can church businesses borrow against tithing funds?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Analytics
_Emeritus
Posts: 4231
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:24 pm

Post by _Analytics »

Trinity wrote:I suspect the brethren make a distinction between the word donations and the word tithing. Members can donate their money, homes, and land to the church and I would be willing to bet these types of donations are not called tithing.

But again, I'm shooting in the dark like everyone else.


I agree. It would also seem that they distinguish between tithing and the investment income they make from investing the tithing. It would seem to me that all of its assets should be considered equally sacred.
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.

-Yuval Noah Harari
_Mercury
_Emeritus
Posts: 5545
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:14 pm

Post by _Mercury »

Analytics wrote:
Trinity wrote:I suspect the brethren make a distinction between the word donations and the word tithing. Members can donate their money, homes, and land to the church and I would be willing to bet these types of donations are not called tithing.

But again, I'm shooting in the dark like everyone else.


I agree. It would also seem that they distinguish between tithing and the investment income they make from investing the tithing. It would seem to me that all of its assets should be considered equally sacred.


Of course its sacred to them. It helps perpetuate their generations-long task of perpetuating a religion that they suck at the tit of.
And crawling on the planet's face
Some insects called the human race
Lost in time
And lost in space...and meaning
_Analytics
_Emeritus
Posts: 4231
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:24 pm

Post by _Analytics »

Mercury wrote:
Analytics wrote:
Trinity wrote:I suspect the brethren make a distinction between the word donations and the word tithing. Members can donate their money, homes, and land to the church and I would be willing to bet these types of donations are not called tithing.

But again, I'm shooting in the dark like everyone else.


I agree. It would also seem that they distinguish between tithing and the investment income they make from investing the tithing. It would seem to me that all of its assets should be considered equally sacred.


Of course its sacred to them. It helps perpetuate their generations-long task of perpetuating a religion that they suck at the tit of.


It isn't sacred in the same way. For example, 10% of the profit the companies make is donated to various charities, many if not all of which are non-LDS. They would not be willing to spend tithing money proper on such charities.
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.

-Yuval Noah Harari
_Who Knows
_Emeritus
Posts: 2455
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 6:09 pm

Post by _Who Knows »

Analytics wrote:
Trinity wrote:I suspect the brethren make a distinction between the word donations and the word tithing. Members can donate their money, homes, and land to the church and I would be willing to bet these types of donations are not called tithing.

But again, I'm shooting in the dark like everyone else.


I agree. It would also seem that they distinguish between tithing and the investment income they make from investing the tithing. It would seem to me that all of its assets should be considered equally sacred.


It depends how you mark it on the white/canary slip. You can designate it however you want - tithing, FO, Hum. aid, other, etc.

I'm sure there are separate 'funds' set up on their books. And each of the funds (tithing, FO, other, etc.) are tracked separately (income and expenses). This is how they can say that 'no tithing funds have been used'. The money for the mall is not coming out of the tithing 'fund'.

This however, does not prevent them from using tithing funds on something that would have been funded another way if there were no mall. ;)
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
_SatanWasSetUp
_Emeritus
Posts: 1183
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 2:40 pm

Post by _SatanWasSetUp »

in my opinion, the church can do whatever it wants with member's tithing and other donations. They ask for the money, and members give it to them no questions asked. What's the problem? They never say exactly what they use the money for, so if you're dumb enough to give it to them, don't act surprised at what they buy with it.

My solution for those who want more financial accountability from the church is don't pay tithing. You're their customers, and the only way any customer can make their voice heard is with their pocketbook. As long as the money's rolling in like a stone cut from the earth the guys at the top won't change the way they're doing business, but if people start asking questions before handing over their money, or simply stop handing over their money, the powers that be will be forced to change. It's simple business.
"We of this Church do not rely on any man-made statement concerning the nature of Deity. Our knowledge comes directly from the personal experience of Joseph Smith." - Gordon B. Hinckley

"It's wrong to criticize leaders of the Mormon Church even if the criticism is true." - Dallin H. Oaks
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Post by _Jason Bourne »

Mercury wrote:
Analytics wrote:It is absolutely certain that the church finances its for-profit business ventures with tithing funds. If a church-owned company needs capital, it comes from the church. Maybe the company would issue stock to the church rather than loan it money, or maybe the companies issue bonds that the church buys, but the net effect is the same.

The concept is, the church has a whole bunch of money that it needs to do something with. It could put it under the matteress, deposit it in the bank, or seek higher returns by investing it in mutual funds or stocks. The church's leaders think they can make better returns by investing it in businesses they own and opperate rather than by investing it in the businesses of others, so they invest it in their own companies.


That concept does not fit with a supposedly altruistic organization. It fits with a capitalistic organization. The LDS corporation should just come out and say its in the business of maximizing its shareholders return (of which LDS members are not a part of) instead of stating its a religion.

Public perception of the LDS church is shifting to the capitalist viewpoint fortunately, so hopefully there will be a RICO-based suit up their alley in the future.


No you are wrong. I know a quite a bit about NFPs and have numnerous NFP clients. All Not for Profits invest and manage money well in order to meet their ultruistic missions. Other wise they are not long for the running. Check out the United Way, Red Cross, Catholic Charites, etc. All invest some funds.
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Post by _Jason Bourne »

That concept does not fit with a supposedly altruistic organization. It fits with a capitalistic organization. The LDS corporation should just come out and say its in the business of maximizing its shareholders return (of which LDS members are not a part of) instead of stating its a religion.


The LDS Church has NO shareholders. Course I know what you are implying and it is further example of your irrationality on things LDS.
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

When Brigham died, the courts had a terrible time extracting the church's holdings from Brigham's holdings. Why? Because Brigham thought they were the same thing and handled them that way. Since the books are closed, we have no way of verifying if our current leaders follow the same path.
_Gazelam
_Emeritus
Posts: 5659
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:06 am

Post by _Gazelam »

From a 1997 TIME magazine article:

The top beef ranch in the world is not the King Ranch in Texas. It is the Deseret Cattle & Citrus Ranch outside Orlando, Fla. It covers 312,000 acres; its value as real estate alone is estimated at $858 million. It is owned entirely by the Mormons. The largest producer of nuts in America, AgReserves, Inc., in Salt Lake City, is Mormon-owned. So are the Bonneville International Corp., the country's 14th largest radio chain, and the Beneficial Life Insurance Co., with assets of $1.6 billion. There are richer churches than the one based in Salt Lake City: Roman Catholic holdings dwarf Mormon wealth. But the Catholic Church has 45 times as many members. There is no major church in the U.S. as active as the Latter-day Saints in economic life, nor, per capita, as successful at it.

The first divergence between Mormon economics and that of other denominations is the tithe. Most churches take in the greater part of their income through donations. Very few, however, impose a compulsory 10% income tax on their members. Tithes are collected locally, with much of the money passed on informally to local lay leaders at Sunday services. "By Monday," says Elbert Peck, editor of Sunstone, an independent Mormon magazine, the church authorities in Salt Lake City "know every cent that's been collected and have made sure the money is deposited in banks." There is a lot to deposit. Last year $5.2 billion in tithes flowed into Salt Lake City, $4.9 billion of which came from American Mormons. By contrast, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, with a comparable U.S. membership, receives $1.7 billion a year in contributions. So great is the tithe flow that scholars have suggested it constitutes practically the intermountain states' only local counterbalance in an economy otherwise dominated by capital from the East and West coasts.

The true Mormon difference, however, lies in what the LDS church does with that money. Most denominations spend on staff, charity and the building and maintenance of churches; leaders will invest a certain amount--in the case of the Evangelical Lutherans, $152 million--as a pension fund, usually through mutual funds or a conservative stock portfolio. The philosophy is minimalist, as Lutheran pastor Mark Moller-Gunderson explains: "Our stewardship is not such that we grow the church through business ventures."

The Mormons are stewards of a different stripe. Their charitable spending and temple building are prodigious. But where other churches spend most of what they receive in a given year, the Latter-day Saints employ vast amounts of money in investments that TIME estimates to be at least $6 billion strong. Even more unusual, most of this money is not in bonds or stock in other peoples' companies but is invested directly in church-owned, for-profit concerns, the largest of which are in agribusiness, media, insurance, travel and real estate. Deseret Management Corp., the company through which the church holds almost all its commercial assets, is one of the largest owners of farm and ranchland in the country, including 49 for-profit parcels in addition to the Deseret Ranch. Besides the Bonneville International chain and Beneficial Life, the church owns a 52% holding in ZCMI, Utah's largest department-store chain. (For a more complete list, see chart.) All told, TIME estimates that the Latter-day Saints farmland and financial investments total some $11 billion, and that the church's nontithe income from its investments exceeds $600 million.

We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
_Mercury
_Emeritus
Posts: 5545
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:14 pm

Post by _Mercury »

harmony wrote:When Brigham died, the courts had a terrible time extracting the church's holdings from Brigham's holdings. Why? Because Brigham thought they were the same thing and handled them that way. Since the books are closed, we have no way of verifying if our current leaders follow the same path.


Whats good enough for brother Brigham is good enough for Hinckley I guess

If Christ were to come back today then the first group of people to get lightning bolts and +2 magic missiles would be the board in salt lake.
And crawling on the planet's face
Some insects called the human race
Lost in time
And lost in space...and meaning
Post Reply